(May 8, 2016 at 6:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: There are some actions that are almost universally regarded as moral or immoral. For instance, giving to charity is generally regarded as moral, while stealing is generally regarded as immoral. Two examples:
1. John has donated $1000 to Oxfam. He simply donated the money, and didn't talk about it. James, through whatever means, found out and donated $2000 to Oxfam, and immediately went round crowing about how he donated twice as much as John, that cheap fuck. Further, James' motivation for his giving was solely to get one up on John, who he never liked. Does John's motivation (helping hungry people) make his action more moral than James' motivation (making himself look better than John)? Remember that in both cases, the end result is the same - people are helped.
2. Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant. No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford. Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford. Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)? Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.
Boru
1. In and of itself, James' donation could be considered as more morally relevant than John's, since it was bigger. But in the large scheme of things, his motivation for donating reveals something about his character, and thus probably something about his future behaviour - he could end up donating far less than John over the course of his life, simply because of the circumstantial nature of the motive that prompted him to make this particular donation. But in my book, what really counts in the end is the actual effect of our actions, not our intentions. Intentions only matter so far as they help us predict behaviour, otherwise they are meaningless.
2. I sense you're slightly manipulative with the sums of money proposed in the two cases here, but I would've agreed anyway that the health of one citizen trumps the aesthetical aspirations of another. That's a no-brainer right there.
