(September 24, 2013 at 7:24 pm)whateverist Wrote: I believe you have the cart out in front of the horse. Between knowing that an action will cause harm and giving a shit about that, it is clearly the giving a shit which is primary. Of course, unless one is aware of a formal reason why an action is morally good or bad, one's behavior may not be correctly said to be 'moral'. Such a person may merely be kind or sensitive or generous without any moral goodness to it, or contrariwise, be cruel or insensitive without there being any quality of moral badness about it.
This is the classic Kantian difference in morality. Unless an action is chosen because it is thought to be morally superior, it is not a moral action. That of course leaves us to conclude that the son who visits his sick mother in the hospital because he endeavors to be a good son has a motive that is morally superior (especially if he loaths her) to that of the son who visits because he loves her and is concerned for her comfort. A conclusion I could never agree with.
Nope. The cart is firmly behind the horse. Without the knowledge that an action causes harm, giving a shit about it would not be possible. Ofcourse, that assumes that causing harm is the primary consideration in morality and there is no reason to assume that. The actual awareness of moral quality of an action is not required for it to have a moral dimension - the capacity for such awareness is. Any reflection on the subject of morality presumes a capacity for such reflection and the existence of that capacity results in that action having a moral dimension - whether the agent acknowledges it or not.
