What does morality mean to you?

[robvalue]

As usual, I'm very concerned with definitions. If at the very least the two parties in a discussion don't agree on what words mean, things quickly become a confused mess.

In the discussions I've been having about morality, it became suddenly clear what morality is really about from my point of view. So I'm interested in how many people would agree with my definition, which is poll option 1.

The morality of an action is decided by:

1) The intention behind the action. Trying to do what you consider to be the right thing, given your beliefs and knowledge, is what determines morality: intending to cause good/bad consequences.

2) The consequences of the action. The beliefs or intent of the person are irrelevant as to deciding whether the action is moral, all that matters is the end result. It is then judged moral or immoral by the person themselves, or by others.

3) Other. (Please specify).

The definition of "good" and "bad" is the subject of a whole other discussion. We'll roughly say they are about human wellbeing for simplicity.

The reason I say intent is important is because I can live my life not meaning to harm anyone, but mistakes happen. If I accidentally harm someone (and I'm not drunk, or acting irresponsibly), was I being immoral? I'd say no. But to consider only the consequences, then yes, I was being immoral. Also, if I'm acting under a mistaken belief and mean to help someone but actually end up harming them, is that immoral? I'd say no.

Also, I may mean to harm someone, but screw up what I'm doing and end up helping them. Is my action then moral? I'd say no, it was immoral because the intent was bad.

To me the actual consequences are irrelevant; it's the intention behind causing particular consequences which determines morality.

[Ashground]

Morality is about intention. We cannot accidentally do good or evil because we didn't foresee the outcome. Just as lightning can kill someone but the lightning itself isn't evil because it - being incapable of thought - can never foresee an outcome.

Consequence is more about responsibility. You are responsible for your own actions even if they're unintentional because responsibility isn't wholly internal, it's about others. You can never know 100% what someone's intentions were, so you expect them to take responsibility for their actions.

[ignoramus]

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

Rob, in the classic example above, where do you sit? How would you label the person who does nothing vs pull the lever?
Morality can be a tricky bastard!

eg: would you do nothing and keep a clear conscious (not labelling yourself a murderer, not your problem) or become a murderer with a positive net sum result for life?
What would the repercussions of intentionally killing someone (irrespective of the reasons) be on your mental health?

I personally cannot ever see myself ending a perfectly innocent person's life for any reason! Shoot me instead, I don't care!

[robvalue]

Sure, that's an interesting question. In some cases doing nothing becomes an action in itself. I would say that if you're aware doing nothing has direct consequences, then you are responsible for not acting. Personally, yes I'd hit the switch and kill one person instead of five or whatever. At least, I think I would. It's hard to know how I would feel in such a mental situation. And you're right, your own wellbeing afterwards is a factor. Personally, I think I'd feel worse knowing I had let five people die when I could have dropped it to one.

To me, the question becomes whether you're less responsible for doing nothing than if it was an active choice. That is very difficult. Logically, I'd have to say the responsibility is the same. But intuitively, doing nothing does seem to remove some blame from you, as people "can't fix every damn thing".

I don't think this has an easy answer!

Ash: I totally agree! Say I accidentally run someone over. It wasn't an immoral action, because I meant no harm. But I now have a responsibility to deal with the consequences. If I drive away and do nothing, that is immoral.

[Aoi Magi]

I chose "other", because for me, the intention and consequence don't determine the morality of the situation, rather the means of achieving the consequence, that is all the choices made in between the intention and leading to the consequence define the morality of the situation from my perspective.

The intention in itself is meaningless, and the consequence is not something we can always predict. However the choices and actions we take in order to bring our intentions to reality is something we do control and is what should constitute morality. Let's say I have the noble goal of saving humanity during a huge plague. This is my "intention". Now I can choose to save all the healthy people only, by killing off the afflicted part of the population, or I can try to first filter out the healthy population and then try to find a cure for the rest. In both scenarios, let's say everyone dies, because there was no cure. So this consequence stemmed from my good intention, but in the end it ended up being bad and out of my control. But what determined my morality in this scenario is the choices i made in dealing with the disease.

(Yes I watch too much walking dead)

[robvalue]

Hmm.. Wouldn't this mean a very inept or stupid person could end up being considered less moral because they often go about things in what we could consider a silly way? Even though they may be trying just as hard to be good? I find that a bit harsh.

Sure, I agree that there is a responsibility to think through your methods. But not everyone has the same capacity for deep thoughts. Are only deep thinkers capable of the highest level of morality?

[Aoi Magi]

Hmm.. Wouldn't this mean a very inept or stupid person could end up being considered less moral because they often go about things in what we could consider a silly way? Even though they may be trying just as hard to be good? I find that a bit harsh.

Sure, I agree that there is a responsibility to think through your methods. But not everyone has the same capacity for deep thoughts. Are only deep thinkers capable of the highest level of morality?

The thing is, I think morality is subjective and relative. So yes, though it would be harsh to consider that stupid person immoral, he would still appear immoral from a certain perspective for say those who don't see him as stupid and are only judging based on his actions, while he may appear morally correct to those who know him well. Thus my point is we define our own morality through our own choices and actions, how moral those same actions appear to someone else is an entirely different ballgame.

[robvalue]

I entirely agree it is subjective and relative.

My idea of morality is you judge a certain person by their own standards, and their own beliefs. So if someone is doing the best they can with what they know and are capable of, then they are being moral, even if the result is bad. If I did the same action as them, with far greater knowledge and skills, knowing what would happen (something bad), then I'd be immoral.

But to say "That would be immoral if I did it, so it's immoral for you to do it" seems pointless to me. The action is going to appear to different people all sorts of degrees of moral. But morality is meant to be a measure of how much a person is trying to do good, not how well they succeed by other people's standards. For one thing, this "standard" it's being held to is going to be the arbitrary one that happens to be held by whoever is making the judgement.

A super powered alien could turn up and declare the whole of humanity to be immoral because all our methods seem primitive to them and have caused unnecessary damage. Is that a fair assessment? I'd say no. We did the best with what we knew.

This is my take anyway To define morality any other way seems to defeat the whole point of it. We have plenty of other ways of measuring objective success.

[Aoi Magi]

I entirely agree it is subjective and relative.

My idea of morality is you judge a certain person by their own standards, and their own beliefs. So if someone is doing the best they can with what they know and are capable of, then they are being moral, even if the result is bad. If I did the same action as them, with far greater knowledge and skills, knowing what would happen (something bad), then I'd be immoral.

But to say "That would be immoral if I did it, so it's immoral for you to do it" seems pointless to me. The action is going to appear to different people all sorts of degrees of moral. But morality is meant to be a measure of how much a person is trying to do good, not how well they succeed by other people's standards. For one thing, this "standard" it's being held to is going to be the arbitrary one that happens to be held by whoever is making the judgement.

A super powered alien could turn up and declare the whole of humanity to be immoral because all our methods seem primitive to them and have caused unnecessary damage. Is that a fair assessment? I'd say no. We did the best with what we knew.

This is my take anyway To define morality any other way seems to defeat the whole point of it. We have plenty of other ways of measuring objective success.

*bold mine

Good in itself is a subjective term, and is defined by the standards of the observer. The whole idea of judging someone based on morality is pointless and will never be fair.

[Catholic_Lady]

I put other.

The intention
The consequence
And the object

IMHO, all three need to be good for an act to be moral.

Edit to add:

Here's a more detailed explanation of my views, in case anyone is curious:

---

Another important foundation of Christian morality is the understanding of moral acts. Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act (where, when, how, with whom, the consequences, etc.).

For an individual act to be morally good, the object, or what we are doing, must be objectively good. Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are referred to as intrinsically evil acts, meaning that they are wrong in themselves, apart from the reason they are done or the circumstances surrounding them.

The goal, end, or intention is the part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, we say that the intention is the subjective element of the moral act. For an act to be morally good, one's intention must be good. If we are motivated to do something by a bad intention—even something that is objectively good—our action is morally evil. It must also be recognized that a good intention cannot make a bad action (something intrinsically evil) good. We can never do something wrong or evil in order to bring about a good. This is the meaning of the saying, "the end does not justify the means"

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachin.../morality/

---