(May 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm)pool the great Wrote: @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?

I never said motivation doesn't affect morality, I just said it doesn't affect the morality of an act.


Yes, that would be moral, but unsustainable.

Quote:

(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.

Fair enough.  Let's try another, more severe example.  Kindness to animals is considered (generally) a moral 'good'.  One man rescues the dogs from a dog-fighting ring, because his motivation is to rehabilitate the dogs as pets or service animals.  Another man rescues the dogs from a dog-fighting ring because he knows he can sell them to other dog fighters for a great deal of money.  Is the rescuing of both groups of dogs morally equivalent?

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 11:57 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

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

The government does not decide morality and if you think they do then you are the one who is an idiot.

 I could give a fuck about my grammar, it's an internet forum not an English class. Also smart guy, a rhetorical question can end in an exclamation point or a question mark.

Quote:The moral side of the road is that which the government decides that it is, whether left or right.

So, if a government passes allowing the sexual assault of children, child rape become a moral act?

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?

The motivations of an action is incredibly morally relevant in the scheme of things. If we isolate the action by itself it's not relevant at all but we don't live in a world of isolated actions, so the more important reality of the matter is that the motivations of an action are morally relevant because good people tend to do good things and bad people tend to do bad things. It's why pure act consequentalism while being technically more accurate overall, I think, is not a useful moral guide.

Consider this: Following and believing a non-consequentialist approach to philosophy may be paradoxically the better and more effective moral guide leading to more ethical actions on consequentalist grounds, even if consequentalism is true and non-consequentalism is false.

In short, behaving as if it's not ultimately consequences that matter, might lead to better consequences. Maybe it really is the case that the ends justify the means but the best way to reach those ends ethically is paradoxically to not believe that (or at least not to behave as if) the ends justify the means.

-Hammy

(May 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:No.

Fair enough.  Let's try another, more severe example.  Kindness to animals is considered (generally) a moral 'good'.  One man rescues the dogs from a dog-fighting ring, because his motivation is to rehabilitate the dogs as pets or service animals.  Another man rescues the dogs from a dog-fighting ring because he knows he can sell them to other dog fighters for a great deal of money.  Is the rescuing of both groups of dogs morally equivalent?

Boru

That would depend on what actually happens to the dogs in question.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:57 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.

The government does not decide morality and if you think they do then you are the one who is an idiot.

Try telling that to a judge after you're charged with murder.

Quote: I could give a fuck about my grammar, it's an internet forum not an English class. Also smart guy, a rhetorical question can end in an exclamation point or a question mark.

I didn't know that about rhetorical questions, thanks. My other two points stand, though.

Edit: Actually, I did know, now I can't understand why I forgot about it.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:The moral side of the road is that which the government decides that it is, whether left or right.

So, if a government passes allowing the sexual assault of children, child rape become a moral act?

Boru

No.

(May 8, 2016 at 9:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: There are different moralities out there. It just so happens that the laws of our countries happen to reign supreme over us as our ultimate moral systems, whether we agree with them or like them or not. And that's because governments enforce them. And that's generally a good thing.

Sounds like "might makes right" to me, that's not moral objectivity. Moral enforcement is not moral objectivity.

-Hammy

Fuck morality in the butt.

(May 8, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 9:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: There are different moralities out there. It just so happens that the laws of our countries happen to reign supreme over us as our ultimate moral systems, whether we agree with them or like them or not. And that's because governments enforce them. And that's generally a good thing.

Sounds like "might makes right" to me, that's not moral objectivity. Moral enforcement is not moral objectivity.

-Hammy

I never said that it necessarily was, it just so happens that in today's world, it generally is.

(May 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Alasdair Ham 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?

The motivations of an action is incredibly morally relevant in the scheme of things. If we isolate the action by itself it's not relevant at all but we don't live in a world of isolated actions, so the more important reality of the matter is that the motivations of an action are morally relevant because good people tend to do good things and bad people tend to do bad things. It's why pure act consequentalism while being technically more accurate overall, I think, is not a useful moral guide.

Consider this: Following and believing a non-consequentialist approach to philosophy may be paradoxically the better and more effective moral guide leading to more ethical actions on consequentalist grounds, even if consequentalism is true and non-consequentalism is false.

In short, behaving as if it's not ultimately consequences that matter, might lead to better consequences. Maybe it really is the case that the ends justify the means but the best way to reach those ends ethically is paradoxically to not believe that (or at least not to behave as if) the ends justify the means.

-Hammy

Consequentialism isn't practical because we can't predict the future, but it might be retroactively significant, I think.

There's no paradox, it's just a little more complex than we'd like, but that doesn't mean we should play pretend or bury our heads in the sand. Call it like it is, there's a reason we separate thought from action. It's better to think correctly about these things and act accordingly.