(May 10, 2016 at 10:26 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Fuck morality in the butt with a cactus. Let's just be prosocial and compassionate.

That sounds like a highly moral position.  Good for you!

I was being flippant, facetious, commonsensical and droll.

Mostly just replying to the OP:


Personally, I think your outward words and actions are the biggest factors in decency/morality, and motivation doesn't really matter at all. In the case of the first example, both men made a morally correct choice by donating to charity. Personally, I don't grade people on how much charity they give, so I wouldn't consider the larger donation to be "more moral." At this point in the equation, both men are equally moral.


James, however, didn't stop there. According to your example, he actively tried to make John feel inferior about his own donation. James almost certainly wouldn't want this done to him in kind, which makes example 1 a violation of the most basic moral tenet: The Golden Rule. The action of making John feel inferior is technically a separate action, since there are probably over 100 ways James could do that without it having anything to do with charity, so the morality of that action should be judged separately.


If James knows that John will feel upset and inferior about his smaller donation even if James says nothing, and James donates with that intention, then it might be a little foggier, but I would still say this violates the golden rule (albeit in a slightly different way).


I, for one, wouldn't want somebody taking advantage of a natural vulnerability I have, especially to do something petty and manipulative with the intention of upsetting me, and I doubt James would, either, so James has again violated TGR. Even though the donation itself is the thing upsetting John, fucking with his head like that is still a separate action from making the donation (even though they're the same act, making this example kind of weird). In that case, I would still separately judge the act of charity and the act of malice.


Buying shoes is morally neutral, and buying medicine for your kid is a moral obligation, so the women are equally moral in how they spent the money (in my opinion). The act of theft is equally immoral in both cases. The taking of the money and the spending are, again, separate actions. There's no real need to drag intentions into any of it.

How does that work though regarding accidents?

If I accidentally run someone over, is that as bad as deliberately running them over?

If I try to shoot someone but end up hitting something which then helps them in some way, is my action moral?

This is why intent matters to me: we don't always achieve exactly what we intend.

(May 14, 2016 at 3:39 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Mostly just replying to the OP:


Personally, I think your outward words and actions are the biggest factors in decency/morality, and motivation doesn't really matter at all. In the case of the first example, both men made a morally correct choice by donating to charity. Personally, I don't grade people on how much charity they give, so I wouldn't consider the  larger donation to be "more moral." At this point in the equation, both men are equally moral.


James, however, didn't stop there. According to your example, he actively tried to make John feel inferior about his own donation. James almost certainly wouldn't want this done to him in kind, which makes example 1 a violation of the most basic moral  tenet: The Golden Rule. The action of making John feel inferior is technically a separate action, since there are probably over 100 ways James could do that without it having anything to do with charity, so the morality of that action should be judged separately.


If James knows that John will feel upset and inferior about his smaller donation even if James says nothing, and James donates with that intention, then it might be a little foggier, but I would still say this violates the golden rule (albeit in a slightly different way).


I, for one, wouldn't want somebody taking advantage of a natural vulnerability I have, especially to do something petty and manipulative with the  intention of upsetting me, and I doubt James would, either, so James has again violated TGR. Even though the donation itself is the thing upsetting John, fucking with his head like that is still a separate action from making the donation (even though they're the same act, making this example kind of weird). In that case, I would still separately judge the act of charity and the act of malice.


Buying shoes is morally neutral, and buying medicine for your kid is a moral obligation, so the women are equally moral in how they spent the money (in my opinion). The act of theft is equally immoral in both cases. The taking of the money and the spending are, again, separate actions. There's no real need to drag intentions into any of it.

There are several problems with your basic moral tenet. Would you like me to enumerate some of them, or should I let you figure them out for yourself by extrapolation?

The bulk of what you said is practically superflous. I'm sure you can figure that out yourself by editing your own reply, should you feel the need to do so.

What you did practically say, however, is that apparently I can give 5 cents to a drunk beggar who I know is trying to save up to buy booze, and Bill Gates could give all his money to the best working charities out there, and yet we'd be morally equal in that particular equation, nothing else being taken into consideration.

You're smart, but you're also afflicted by the need to pander to idiots, so you inadvertently modify your own remarks so as to be more socially acceptable, even at the cost of rationality. It's ok*, the world is what it is, and it's far simpler to change yourself than to change it. Just be aware of what you're doing so you can at least get better at it and your hipocrisy isn't apparent enough to annoy me.

EP, is this a comedy routine where you play a patronizing asshole? Because that last paragraph made me laugh out loud, please tell me this is a comedy routine because if you're serious I'll hurt my face through facepalming too hard.

Well, now that you read that, there's no point in boring anyone else with it.

Considering you replied to a bunch of my replies very recently, no wonder you misunderstood them completely if you responded to them without reading them

-Hammy

(May 14, 2016 at 10:29 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Considering you replied to a bunch of my replies very recently, no wonder you misunderstood them completely if you responded to them without reading them

-Hammy

Oh what a surprise, EP completely changed his post altogether so my response to him makes no sense now

EP said he never reads my posts anymore and that he hasn't in ages so I should stop posting to him because it is wasting both our times.

(May 14, 2016 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: How does that work though regarding accidents?

If I accidentally run someone over, is that as bad as deliberately running them over?

If I try to shoot someone but end up hitting something which then helps them in some way, is my action moral?

This is why intent matters to me: we don't always achieve exactly what we intend.

Well, accidentally running someone over (presuming that it doesn't happen because of some conscious decision you've made, such as texting or drinking), is not the same action as assaulting someone with a deadly weapon, which is immoral regardless of the car being the weapon. When you ran the person over accidentally, you were not "in the act" of running them over, per se, you were just in the act of going to the store (or whatever). The action you were taking was not immoral. If you're at fault, then you might be responsible and have to make amends somehow, but that's not the same as being wrong.


I suppose intent does play a role in how we classify actions as either negligent or malicious, and in turn does have an impact on the morality of an action itself, so I'm probably oversimplifying by trying to rule it out entirely, but in the practical sense it really is action that matters. In a court of law, for example, establishing the "intent" would involve finding some kind of evidence that the person took actions which suggest they premeditated what they did (talking to someone about their plans, writing their plans down, purchasing the things they need for the plan months in advance, etc.). Everyone thinks their own intentions are good (generally), and it's practically impossible to know another person's intentions without looking at their outward words and actions (if that's even possible, depending on the case).


To use another example, there are people who kill/permanently damage their children because they forsake modern medicine in favor of prayer or witchcraft. Despite the fact that their intent is to heal, their actions are still grossly immoral. Still, that's not the same series of actions as laying out a set of plans, gathering supplies for the plan, and then murdering someone according to the plan. While intent separates those actions as to how they're defined, action (and to some degree perhaps words, insofar as we can trust/corroborate them) is still how we determine which act was actually committed.

---

Penguin, I thought your response was a little douchey, and I was going to respond anyway, but after seeing what you said to Evie (before deleting it like a coward) I've pretty well written you off as a complete dick, so I don't think I'll bother. Lighten up, dude.

(May 15, 2016 at 12:21 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: How does that work though regarding accidents?

If I accidentally run someone over, is that as bad as deliberately running them over?

If I try to shoot someone but end up hitting something which then helps them in some way, is my action moral?

This is why intent matters to me: we don't always achieve exactly what we intend.

Well, accidentally running someone over (presuming that it doesn't happen because of some conscious decision you've made, such as texting or drinking), is not the same action as assaulting someone with a deadly weapon, which is immoral regardless of the car being the weapon. When you ran the person over accidentally, you were not "in the act" of running them over, per se, you were just in the act of going to the store (or whatever). The action you were taking was not immoral. If you're at fault, then you might be responsible and have to make amends somehow, but that's not the same as being wrong.


I suppose intent does play a role in how we classify actions as either negligent or malicious, and in turn does have an impact on the morality of an action itself, so I'm probably oversimplifying by trying to rule it out entirely, but in the practical sense it really is action that matters. In a court of law, for example, establishing the "intent" would involve finding some kind of evidence that the person took actions which suggest they premeditated what they did (talking to someone about their plans, writing their plans down, purchasing the things they need for the plan months in advance, etc.). Everyone thinks their own intentions are good (generally), and it's practically impossible to know another person's intentions without looking at their outward words and actions (if that's even possible, depending on the case).


To use another example, there are people who kill/permanently damage their children because they forsake modern medicine in favor of prayer or witchcraft. Despite the fact that their intent is to heal, their actions are still grossly immoral. Still, that's not the same series of actions as laying out a set of plans, gathering supplies for the plan, and then murdering someone according to the plan. While intent separates those actions as to how they're defined, action (and to some degree perhaps words, insofar as we can trust/corroborate them) is still how we determine which act was actually committed.

---

Penguin, I thought your response was a little douchey, and I was going to respond anyway, but after seeing what you said to Eevie (before deleting it like a coward) I've pretty well written you off as a complete dick, so I don't think I'll bother. Lighten up, dude.

If you had understood my argument, or had been able to understand it, you wouldn't have had any reason to respond to it, especially not the way you did. So I think an apology is in order, lectures and insults only work on people who understand them. In other words, if you really are the moron I'm accusing you of pretending to be, I don't have to be an ass to you. I'll just manipulate you into liking me - or be nice, as it's otherwise called.

Did I just think write that out loud?