Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[Redbeard The Pink]

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?

Whatever you say, douche guzzler. Apology accepted.

[Excited Penguin]

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?

Whatever you say, douche guzzler. Apology accepted.

I'm, really, just puzzled and confused, you know. I didn't really mean any of that, I was just tired and upset about something else. I do admit I can usually be a dick, or at least that's my persona, but that's just a front to conceal the fact that life scares me. I'm, really, a good person deep down.

So do you want us to chat about morality? I think TGR is an amazing, amazing rule, and I think people should follow it all the time.

Do you mind if I start writing in green from now on?

[Edwardo Piet]

EP's two modes: 1. Brutally honest but an opinionated arrogant asshole. 2. Insincere, dishonest and pretending to be nice.

He's in mode two right now, his previous post he was in mode 1.

Kinda sad he can't be both honest and sincere ain't it? Oh well.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Whatever you say, douche guzzler. Apology accepted.

I'm, really, just puzzled and confused, you know. I didn't really mean any of that, I was just tired and upset about something else. I do admit I can usually be a dick, or at least that's my persona, but that's just a front to conceal the fact that life scares me. I'm, really, a good person deep down.

So do you want us to chat about morality? I think TGR is an amazing, amazing rule, and I think people should follow it all the time.

Do you mind if I start writing in green from now on?

Do what you like, child. Just don't be late for math class, and make sure you eat all your vegetables or the boogey man will get you.

[SofaKingHigh]

Whatever you say, douche guzzler. Apology accepted.

I'm, really, just puzzled and confused, you know. I didn't really mean any of that, I was just tired and upset about something else. I do admit I can usually be a dick, or at least that's my persona, but that's just a front to conceal the fact that life scares me. I'm, really, a good person deep down.

So do you want us to chat about morality? I think TGR is an amazing, amazing rule, and I think people should follow it all the time.

Do you mind if I start writing in green from now on?

What a cunt.

[quip]

There are some actions that are almost universally regarded as moral or immoral.  For instance, giving to charity is generally regarded as moral, while stealing is generally regarded as immoral.  Two examples:

1.  John has donated $1000 to Oxfam.  He simply donated the money, and didn't talk about it.  James, through whatever means, found out and donated $2000 to Oxfam, and immediately went round crowing about how he donated twice as much as John, that cheap fuck.  Further, James' motivation for his giving was solely to get one up on John, who he never liked.  Does John's motivation (helping hungry people) make his action more moral than James' motivation (making himself look better than John)?  Remember that in both cases, the end result is the same - people are helped.

That depends on your particular ethical philosophy. a deontological ethicist would say both acted intrinsically moral...particular sums are irrelevant. A virtue ethicist would claim that John's motives where more ethical than James'. Utilitarianism would claim the most good (potentially) was brought about by James.

2.  Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant.  No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford.  Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford.  Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)?  Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.

Boru

Deontology: Both immoral - both should have found the money's owner (assuming the possibility)
Virtue: Brenda (used an initial unwholesome act to help another ...i.e. consequentialism)
Utilitarian: Brenda...the only one that produced an external positive result (Though you could argue that buying shoes help the shoe-store owner, employees etc. Though, Brenda's selflessness wins the day.)

[Edwardo Piet]

Utilitarianism would claim the most good (potentially) was brought about by James.

Not necessarily.