Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[rexbeccarox]

I think it's pretty obvious that intent matters, since morality (at least to me) means acting in accordance with feelings and ideas about a more perfect social world.

For example, let's say I donate money to a woman's shelter because I'm hoping to impress a woman into having sex with me.  While donating to help people in need is generally moral, it's moral because I'm acting on a principle of goodwiill.  If I'm doing it to take advantage of someone's psychological state (feeling men are cruel and uncaring and being grateful when a man seems to show compassion) is clearly immoral.

But giving to the shelter, in and of itself, is a separate act from taking advantage of a woman because of it. If someone has the motivation to give money to a women's shelter and dies before taking advantage of anyone, you would have to unfairly assign the immorality of his intentions to judge whether they were morally good or bad.

[Aroura]

The problem I see here is that although it feels obvious to link motives with morality, motives are internal and invisible to others, unless you do or say something to make them obvious.

If there is a god that can read your mind, then motive counts. If not....doesn't only the outcome matter?

If a starving person stole from me, I would like to think I would be understanding. But if some rich bratty teen stole the exact same amount or item from me, does he actually deserve to be punished more just because he did it for giggles, and not to feed his starving kid or something? Can we correctly ascertain motive? Perhaps the rich kid is neglected at home, has massive pressure put on him, and suffers from reckless behavior due to it. Should the starving guy be forgiven, and the suffering teen not, just because society is ok with viewing one as a victim and the other as a brat?

I don't know. These aren't easy questions with easy answers. But I will say that personally, motive is only a small part of how I view the morality of those around me.

My hubby bought me a message for mothers day. I know, deep down, he's partly motivated to do this so he can score bedroom points for later. Should I penalize him because his motive was at least partly selfish, or should I just enjoy my message and attention from my husband? Hmmmm

[Excited Penguin]

The problem I see here is that although it feels obvious to link motives with morality, motives are internal and invisible to others, unless you do or say something to make them obvious.

If there is a god that can read your mind, then motive counts. If not....doesn't only the outcome matter?

If a starving person stole from me, I would like to think I would be understanding. But if some rich bratty teen stole the exact same amount or item from me, does he actually deserve to be punished more just because he did it for giggles, and not to feed his starving kid or something? Can we correctly ascertain motive? Perhaps the rich kid is neglected at home, has massive pressure put on him, and suffers from reckless behavior due to it. Should the starving guy be forgiven, and the suffering teen not, just because society is ok with viewing one as a victim and the other as a brat?

I don't know. These aren't easy questions with easy answers. But I will say that personally, motive is only a small part of how I view the morality of those around me.

My hubby bought me a message for mothers day. I know, deep down, he's partly motivated to do this so he can score bedroom points for later. Should I penalize him because his motive was at least partly selfish, or should I just enjoy my message and attention from my husband? Hmmmm

Partly motivated?

[Mr.wizard]

Moral codes are not enforced by mandate or fear of punishment, moral codes are beliefs about right and wrong that individuals hold. Laws are mandates that are enforced by fear of punishment, this is why laws are not dictating morals they are only setting rules in order regulate a society.

The fact that laws can be immoral or that certain immoral behaviors are legal, tells us that laws are not dictating morality.

I think you're mistaking society's morality for an utopic one that doesn't exist. I never described the latter, only the former.

Huh? I made no mention of a utopic society, are you sure you responded to the right person?


Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

Laws do not tell us what we think is right and wrong, they only tell us what is legal. For instance I think adultery is immoral but I don't think it should be illegal.

[robvalue]

@ Rob, yeah... But I'm wondering if my health analogy works perhaps... I do think there's far too much of the darn speciesism lark. No but seriously, yeah it's disgusting. The treatment to animals and bias against them sickens me.

But anyhoo, about the health thing. Animal health can be studied and we merely label physical and mental well being as health yeah? Why not same for morality, like, when it comes to suffering and stuff?

Yes, I agree. Animals are the new second class citizen, in countries where women no longer are. Some countries are far worse than others, but even in the ones where animals are "treated well" I see a whole lot of improvement being needed. I imagine future generations looking back with disgust, just as we do with slavery and such. My personal views on this are controversial, as you know. But I would like to believe they are forward thinking.

I've been mulling this over, and I reckon I might have a handle on why we seem to disagree on morality in general. Well, not much disagree, but come at it from different perspectives. You seem to be approaching it from the point of view of setting up a series of guidelines, as in "Doing the following things are harmful, so don't do them." And similarly, "Doing these things are helpful, so do them". There's nothing wrong with that, and I agree that each person basically comes up with their own lists like this, to manage their own behaviour. It is the basis of everyone's morality.

Examining objective harm can certainly be very beneficial for this process. Ignorance is often the cause of unecessary harm. However, I have been talking about examining a specific action a particular person has taken, and considering what judgement I would come to about how moral or immoral it was for them to act that way. This is a more difficult process, but it's new information. It is then redundant for me to just point out what I consider to be harmful. I need to get inside their brain, as much as I can. Sure, I can say that "If I did what you just did, I would consider that moral/immoral". That is a useful judgement too. But it wasn't me, it was them. And so if I'm to be able to discuss morality with them, I can't just project my own values. I need to see how they came to their decision. So I'm also thinking, "If I was this person, would I have been acting morally or immorally"? This is yet more new information, to aid discussion. And if their idea of "moral" is different to mine, why is that? Am I able to convince them that my idea is superior? Just announcing that it is doesn't achieve anything.

And it's also to do with accountability. Just because someone has "caused harm" I don't necessarily hold them accountable, or assume they acted immorally. Things are much more complex than this. Just saying "it would have been immoral to cause that harm devoid of context" is again redundant. People never accomplish exactly what they mean to for one thing, and you can't expect everyone's beliefs to be true either. It's a hugely grey area.

But my point is that just handing over a list to someone and saying, "don't do these things, they are harmful" isn't going to achieve anything if they don't care that they are harmful, or don't agree that the harm matters. So discussing the goals of morality, and the way moral decisions are made, is very important.

I have so much I could potentially say about this... that it's hard to summarise really. But as always, I'm a pragmatist at heart. If a discussion about morality isn't actually achieving anything at all, then it's worthless. So it has to be sophisticated enough to actually make a difference between people who don't agree on the fundamentals.

And among people who do agree, it has to be sophisticated enough to handle conflicts. You don't need any discussion to get most people to agree that cutting off someone's head is worse than not doing so, in most situations. But it's when there is a need for compromise, when you must choose the "lesser of two evils", that morality becomes complex. And it's where it stops being objective, in my opinion, in any useful sense.

[Excited Penguin]

I think you're mistaking society's morality for an utopic one that doesn't exist. I never described the latter, only the former.

Huh? I made no mention of a utopic society, are you sure you responded to the right person?


Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

Laws do not tell us what we think is right and wrong, they only tell us what is legal. For instance I think adultery is immoral but I don't think it should be illegal.

What you think is irrelevant. Adultery is illegal in many states and that makes it decidedly immoral on a societal level. I know what laws are but they are also enforcers of morality, but you'd need a brain to figure that out.

[SofaKingHigh]

Huh? I made no mention of a utopic society, are you sure you responded to the right person?


Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

Laws do not tell us what we think is right and wrong, they only tell us what is legal. For instance I think adultery is immoral but I don't think it should be illegal.

What you think is irrelevant. Adultery is illegal in many states and that makes it decidedly immoral on a societal level. I know what laws are but they are also enforcers of morality, but you'd need a brain to figure that out.

Morality is subjective fucknuts.  Laws are not.

[Excited Penguin]

What you think is irrelevant. Adultery is illegal in many states and that makes it decidedly immoral on a societal level. I know what laws are but they are also enforcers of morality, but you'd need a brain to figure that out.

Morality is subjective fucknuts.  Laws are not.

It can also be objective. There are as many moralities out there as there are differing opinions concerning it, but societal moralities reign supreme by fiat.

[SofaKingHigh]

Morality is subjective fucknuts.  Laws are not.

It can also be objective. There are as many moralities out there as there are different opinions concerning it, but societal moralities reign supreme.

Word salad.  Morality is subjective.  Attempting to objectify morality makes one sound much like an Imam.

Fact is, doesn't matter what moral standpoint you put forward, someone, somewhere will argue it.

[Excited Penguin]

It can also be objective. There are as many moralities out there as there are different opinions concerning it, but societal moralities reign supreme.

Word salad.  Morality is subjective.  Attempting to objectify morality makes one sound much like an Imam.

Fact is, doesn't matter what moral standpoint you put forward, someone, somewhere will argue it.

We have a disagreement, it seems. Let's leave it at that.