(May 8, 2016 at 11:04 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 10:44 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I didn't either. I didn't make any claims at all.

-Hammy

1) and 2) are statistical claims.

Quote:1)who has the best intentions is a better person and is almost certainly more likely to actually be the person who does the most moral good through moral acts in the long run --2) most of the time good people do good things and bad people do bad things, not always but intentions matter.

^ reference numbers mine.

They're not claims, just opinions.

EP Wrote:And this is a contradiction:

Hammy Wrote:Who produces the best long term consequences has done the most moral good through moral acts, but who has the best intentions is a better person

I'm defining a "good person" as someone with good intentions whereas doing moral good through moral acts is what the morally good thing to do is.

-Hammy

(May 8, 2016 at 11:13 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: When I'm talking about objective morality being out there, I'm not talking about the electrical impulses in the brain that give rise to it, but about their effect in the external world. So I would describe an instance of objective morality at work as someone performing an objectively moral act. In that sense, objective morality is not only inside the mind, but also out there, in the world.

But what makes those objective/unbiased moral acts unbiased?

-Hammy

Let me re-phrase, since it seems I buggered up the point: Is a particular action more or less moral because of the motivation of the actor?

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 11:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Let me re-phrase, since it seems I buggered up the point:  Is a particular action more or less moral because of the motivation of the actor?

Boru

My first instinct conflicts with my logical brain.

The moral wrong they committed was equivalent. One act was selfish and the other selfless, and an act of survival. I can't blame person 2 and would probably do the same thing.

A very good thought exercise.

(May 8, 2016 at 11:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 10:54 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Well if there are people split on the morality of abortion who's morality are they using to base the law on?

Their own(collectively), or rather, their majority's.

Quote:Also laws like driving on the right side of the road is based on morality how?

If you don't drive on the right side of the road, you run the high risk of producing casualties and damage, which isn't allowed within the moral system that dictates those laws.

No laws are not based on what the majority moral opinion is, if that was the case we would all be living under biblical Christian law.

What are you talking about! the law could just as easily say drive on the left side of road like in other countries, there is no more moral side of the road.

(May 8, 2016 at 11:21 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:04 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: 1) and 2) are statistical claims.

^ reference numbers mine.

They're not claims, just opinions.

You should've phrased them as such, then.

Quote:I'm defining a "good person" as someone with good intentions whereas doing moral good through moral acts is what the morally good thing to do is. 

-Hammy

So you're using different definitions of the word good, in the same sentence, without specifying it?

(May 8, 2016 at 11:24 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:13 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: When I'm talking about objective morality being out there, I'm not talking about the electrical impulses in the brain that give rise to it, but about their effect in the external world. So I would describe an instance of objective morality at work as someone performing an objectively moral act. In that sense, objective morality is not only inside the mind, but also out there, in the world.

But what makes those objective/unbiased moral acts unbiased?

-Hammy

What does that have to do with anything?

(May 8, 2016 at 11:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Let me re-phrase, since it seems I buggered up the point:  Is a particular action more or less moral because of the motivation of the actor?

Boru

No.

(May 8, 2016 at 11:37 am)Mermaid Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Let me re-phrase, since it seems I buggered up the point:  Is a particular action more or less moral because of the motivation of the actor?

Boru

My first instinct conflicts with my logical brain.

The moral wrong they committed was equivalent. One act was selfish and the other selfless, and an act of survival. I can't blame person 2 and would probably do the same thing.

A very good thought exercise.

What moral wrong? How was one act selfless, and an act of survival? You would also only donate to publicly compete with some other person who donated?

How is it a good thought exercise?

Maybe I should've just replied with a big question mark.

(May 8, 2016 at 11:41 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Their own(collectively), or rather, their majority's.


If you don't drive on the right side of the road, you run the high risk of producing casualties and damage, which isn't allowed within the moral system that dictates those laws.

No laws are not based on what the majority moral opinion is, if that was the case we would all be living under biblical Christian law.

What are you talking about! the law could just as easily say drive on the left side of road like in other countries, there is no more moral side of the road.

It was my understanding that people elect representatives who write and pass their laws, maybe it's different where you're from. The moral side of the road is that which the government decides that it is, whether left or right. Which one of the two it is is irrelevant and it's got more to do with historical accidents than with anything else.



Also, missing that comma makes you sound like an idiot.

Transforming a question into an exclamation does that as well.

Not capitalizing the beginning of a new sentence... You get it.

@Boru, Ok wow, this is a good one, I'll have to seriously think about this before I give an opinion.

@EP, If motivation doesn't affect morality, would you agree that it is moral to steal from the rich and give to the poor?
A person is being selfless,gives all the money to the poor and doesn't take anything for himself, would it be a moral thing?

(May 8, 2016 at 11:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Let me re-phrase, since it seems I buggered up the point:  Is a particular action more or less moral because of the motivation of the actor?

Boru

In my opinion, yes. But then, to someone else, they might say no. I don't think there's a "correct" answer. Morality is a value judgement; to make it objective it must become a measurement, and that means someone deciding how exactly it will be measured. It then becomes useless, in a way that "length" doesn't.

I would personally find any moral system that only assesses the action and its consequences, without taking anything else into account, to be so simple as to be useless. I cannot detach the person from the action. Without the person, it's just "stuff happening" and morality is irrelevant.

I find people rarely agree on what morality means before getting into a massive discussion about it. Definitions are very important. We have individual morality and we have societal norms. It's important to distinguish between these.

(May 8, 2016 at 11:51 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:37 am)Mermaid Wrote: My first instinct conflicts with my logical brain.

The moral wrong they committed was equivalent. One act was selfish and the other selfless, and an act of survival. I can't blame person 2 and would probably do the same thing.

A very good thought exercise.

What moral wrong? How was one act selfless, and an act of survival? You would also only donate to publicly compete with some other person who donated?

How is it a good thought exercise?

Maybe I should've just replied with a big question mark.

I am talking about the found money scenario, but the donation scenario is an equally interesting thought. It makes me think about the motivations behind my own charitable acts. I have found money before, and have returned or attempted to return it to its owner. But why? Did I think it was the right thing to do, or was I motivated by appearing moral and good by other people? Have I made charitable donations because I am selfless, or because it makes me look better to others? Or is it done to feel better about myself? Is that a selfish act itself?

The selfless act committed with the found money was not a material purchase for self gratification. But it was motivated by that just the same, the health of a child, or at least one could argue that it was.