Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[Cerrone]

Of course it relies on what you define morality to be, though most commonly it is used to mean "a standard by which we judge action" or phrased in another way "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."(Dictionary.com)

I am arguing for an objective moral theory, until recently i was a moral subjectivist, but I think Desirism is a better framework that best represents our moral intuitions about right and wrong with only the use of empirically testable phenomenon and objective measurements of relationships between desires and a state of affairs. It can achieve moral facts, such as making the statement "rape is wrong" factually true instead of subjectively unpleasant.

Ok, I can generally agree that true moral conduct stems from virtue in a way and even if I think that morality in the common use of the word is non-existant it still takes some virtue for an individual to attempt to obey the rules of morality in their "desire" to "do the right thing".

However where I think you're going wrong with applying desirism here is that often "the right thing to do" isn't always pleasant, hence why it's easier to just give up or not make the effort rather than trying to be virtuous because you're unconciously or conciously using your own desire for happiness as the driving force behind your actions. I'm not trying to say that this behaviour doesn't exist, of course it does, but it's more accurately described as a completely selfish state of mind, rather than an ideological philosophy with any merit.

Granted if you applied long term consequentialism into desirism and if peoples desires were not entirely selfish, then it turns into something much better, more productive, but desirism alone is like a car engine without a car; it's just a rampant uncontrolled force which only provides any use when put to work inside the context of another philosophy- consequentialism.

So how do we get to moral facts? In Utilitarianism we are trying to achieve a better state of affairs, and a better state of affairs is one where more and stronger desires are promoted than thwarted compared to the present moment, a good action is one that leads to a better state of affairs.

Explain to me how a better state of affairs is one that produces more desires? You could use that logic to validate consumerism, individualism... it doesn't give either one any more merit and it doesn't fix their destructive impacts. If any desire needs to be thwarted it'd have to be selfishness.

Of course the latter, the ongoing suffering of many thwarts more and stronger desires than the death of the bad man. Nobody desires to suffer, the desire not to suffer is stronger and more prevalent than the desire to make someone suffer, thus actions that lead to the suffering was morally wrong and any action that prevents the suffering from continuing, such as the killing of the person who is enforcing the suffering, is morally good.

I can see how your thought process is working on this one, i'm glad we agree.

Oh, so donating to starving children makes them worse off? That's bullshit mate, having food, clean water, medicine, education, shelter etc DOES NOT make their life worse. You're argument is totally unsubstantiated and has absolutely no resemblance to the actual data, world disease and suffering is down in impoverished nations, especially in children, disease rates are down too, education is up and life prospects are improving.

Well keep telling yourself that. Everytime you give charity to anybody it makes them less concerned about providing for themselves because they can always go back to you for handouts. People generally don't do anything for themselves until they've realised that the only people who'll improve their lives is them themselves. This is really a case where the taking action in agreement with the best long term consequences aren't in fact the most pleasent thing to do, but it is nevertheless, the right thing to do..

So fuck charity, they need a revolution. But thats a subject for another conversation...

Besides have you studied macro economics? The first world desperately needs the third world to exist in poverty in order to get cheap goods and resources, if the third world was as wealthy as the first they wouldn't be making our sneakers for us, so nobody would be! Do you think the world leaders would take a course of action that is so obviously detrimental to the continuation of their powerbase and even the economc system itself? This is one of the big reasons why the US is so fond of controlling the third by installing vassal dictators to keep them in line.

Bizarre example, you may want to phrase it a little more clearly next time, i've had to read between the lines to make any real sense of it.
If cattle prodding them into raping each other would be an action that thwarts less desires (the desires of the bad people not to be raped) than the desires of the people that they would otherwise rape, the cattle prodding the bad people is more moral.

My point was that to disinterest people who're intent on doing harm, you shouldn't wait for them to do harm and hope they will realise by themselves that their actions are counter productive to their own desires, you should force them into realisation as soon as possible. If you fail to completely make them realise this then there's no guarantee they aren't just biding their time waiting until an eaiser oppourtunity comes along where they can fulfill their destructive desires.

Desirism is not a deference of moral responsibility it is a method of determining the truth of moral propositions, and it as for making choices go, the choices you make are more likely to be morally good because you have a method for working out which actions help fulfil the most and strongest desires and thus bring about a better state of affairs, rather than intuiting it, and intuition is far more prone to error than relational measurements.

Where the hell did you get that from? Do you want to show the part of my argument that you used to make this conclusion, because i'm pretty sure you have it completely backwards. The length of consequences, short term or long term, makes no difference, what matters is what desires are ones that tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart, a moral person is one who's desires tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart, it tells you want actions are morally good and bad based on this relationship between desires and the state of affairs.

We need to apply consequences to desires before we can resolve this arguement properly.

You're basing that desirism will make peoples choices more "morally good" on the aspect that those people aren't falling prey to false-fulfillment, they may believe they're happy and moral, but they're just deluded because of their short term vision and lack of perspective, and that's proved when any action they take leaves them walking in a circle without any change or notable achievement.

And until that's resolved, my conclusion still stands.

So all desirism achieves universally then, is putting off the inevitable harder choices for short term gains (and we'll assume that inaction and remaining neutral is considered a short term gain as well) and forgetting to take account for the long term consequences of the act, which you didnt even consider then when creating the example... or willfully ignored.

[theVOID]

Of course it relies on what you define morality to be, though most commonly it is used to mean "a standard by which we judge action" or phrased in another way "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."(Dictionary.com)

I am arguing for an objective moral theory, until recently i was a moral subjectivist, but I think Desirism is a better framework that best represents our moral intuitions about right and wrong with only the use of empirically testable phenomenon and objective measurements of relationships between desires and a state of affairs. It can achieve moral facts, such as making the statement "rape is wrong" factually true instead of subjectively unpleasant.

Ok, I can generally agree that true moral conduct stems from virtue in a way and even if I think that morality in the common use of the word is non-existant it still takes some virtue for an individual to attempt to obey the rules of morality in their "desire" to "do the right thing".

Well of course you have to want to do the right thing. All oughts are qualified by If's. If you want to get to antarctica, you ought to go south. If you want to see at night, you ought to turn on the lights. If you want to make the world a better place, you ought to be a moral person.

Without the desire to make the world better there is no reason to act morally in the first place, this is somethign that is subject in all moral systems, you always need an IF. If you wish not to have your ass fried by god for all eternity, you ought to follow the rules. etc.

However where I think you're going wrong with applying desirism here is that often "the right thing to do" isn't always pleasant, hence why it's easier to just give up or not make the effort rather than trying to be virtuous because you're unconciously or conciously using your own desire for happiness as the driving force behind your actions.

Pleasentness doesn't matter at all, if you had to kill 1,000 people to save 10,000 then it would certainly be unpleasent, but it would also be the action that promoted more and stronger desires than it thwarted. There is no exclusivity here.

I know that we can often take our desires first, all that means is we aren't always acting morally. If that was not the case then morality would simply become whatever we desire at the time.

I'm not trying to say that this behaviour doesn't exist, of course it does, but it's more accurately described as a completely selfish state of mind, rather than an ideological philosophy with any merit.

You just seem to be lost in your own confusion, people being selfish has nothing to do with the validity of any moral theory, it's simply a fact about this world that has an impact on the wright and wrong of moral action inside the theory.

Granted if you applied long term consequentialism into desirism and if peoples desires were not entirely selfish, then it turns into something much better, more productive, but desirism alone is like a car engine without a car; it's just a rampant uncontrolled force which only provides any use when put to work inside the context of another philosophy- consequentialism.

Now i'm convinced you're lost. Can you cite my argument when stating these conclusions so i can see where you've gone wrong?

Explain to me how a better state of affairs is one that produces more desires? You could use that logic to validate consumerism, individualism... it doesn't give either one any more merit and it doesn't fix their destructive impacts. If any desire needs to be thwarted it'd have to be selfishness.

You've got it wrong here too. A better state of affairs is one in which there are more and stronger desires promoted than at the present. This is a state of affairs in which people get to do more of what they want to do whilst having less of their desires thwarted by the desires of others.

Since our desires are what drives all of our action, a better state of affairs is one where we are free to take more action towards fulfilling our desires than we are currently. Desires that lead to a better state of affairs are good desires.

You cannot use desireism to validate anythign other than the impact of desires and whether or not they lead to a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfilled than at the present moment.

Well keep telling yourself that. Everytime you give charity to anybody it makes them less concerned about providing for themselves because they can always go back to you for handouts. People generally don't do anything for themselves until they've realised that the only people who'll improve their lives is them themselves. This is really a case where the taking action in agreement with the best long term consequences aren't in fact the most pleasent thing to do, but it is nevertheless, the right thing to do..

If we left them in an impoverished desert nation where there are simply not enough resources to survive in the first place then not giving them aid will not help them, it will kill them.

So fuck charity, they need a revolution. But thats a subject for another conversation...

Sure, if you've got a case then i'd like to see it.

Besides have you studied macro economics? The first world desperately needs the third world to exist in poverty in order to get cheap goods and resources, if the third world was as wealthy as the first they wouldn't be making our sneakers for us, so nobody would be! Do you think the world leaders would take a course of action that is so obviously detrimental to the continuation of their powerbase and even the economc system itself? This is one of the big reasons why the US is so fond of controlling the third by installing vassal dictators to keep them in line.

No i don't doubt that happens, but negating aid for them is just going to leave them even more at the mercy of certain exploitative companies (stabucks).

My point was that to disinterest people who're intent on doing harm, you shouldn't wait for them to do harm and hope they will realise by themselves that their actions are counter productive to their own desires, you should force them into realisation as soon as possible. If you fail to completely make them realise this then there's no guarantee they aren't just biding their time waiting until an eaiser oppourtunity comes along where they can fulfill their destructive desires.

I don't see how this is relevent, but i agree. Their desires are destructive, and of course if they aren't concerned with creating a better state of affairs then we should not expect them to act morally. If someone isn't going to care, or have stronger desires to do wrong, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest under what moral theory you determined right and wrong.

We can use praise and condemnation on individuals long term to change their desires, we can threaten them with punishment, which means their desires will be thwarted for proloned periods of time while they are imprisoned. We can also praise and reward good desires to help people desire actions that promote other desires as well as being fulfiled themselves, lik the example of making your friends happy, it's both self fulfilling and promotive of other desires.

We need to apply consequences to desires before we can resolve this arguement properly.

You're basing that desirism will make peoples choices more "morally good" on the aspect that those people aren't falling prey to false-fulfillment, they may believe they're happy and moral, but they're just deluded because of their short term vision and lack of perspective, and that's proved when any action they take leaves them walking in a circle without any change or notable achievement.

No, desirim won't make anyone's choices morally good, it will provide a standard by which we can judge these actions.

If someone believes that they are doing the right thing and they actually arent all that means is they are mistaken, this again has nothing to do with determining right and wrong. Intentions play a large part, an accidental wrong is not as bad as an intentional wrong, because the desire to do wrong is stronger than a desire that unintentionally did wrong, even though they might have the same negatvie impact, so in that case the accidental thwarting of desires is less wrong because of the strenght and intention of the desire.

Also, someone acting towards their own happiness and fulfilment doesn't say anythign about how moral their actions are. It is possible that a person's desires that make them promote and fulfil more and stronger desires in others while being self fulfiled. This is an ideal state, we can use praise and condemnation to make other people desire to have desires tha promote other desires. A state of affaris in which all desires are desires than promote more and stronger desires is the ultimate state of affairs. A state of affairs in which all desires thwart other desires is the antithesis of that state.

If we want to be moral we ought to act in a way that leads to a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfiled and promoted than at present.

You quoted this again. you didn't like the response?

So all desirism achieves universally then, is putting off the inevitable harder choices for short term gains (and we'll assume that inaction and remaining neutral is considered a short term gain as well) and forgetting to take account for the long term consequences of the act, which you didnt even consider then when creating the example... or willfully ignored.

Short term and long term gains are no different, the impact of the desire is relevent for as long as it has impact. All desires thwarted for any length of time contribute towards how morally bad the initial desire was. If the desire in question intially promoted more desires but long term ended up thwarting more then this was a desire than thwarted mroe and stronger desires than it promoted, and thus is morally wrong.

Likewise an action that intially thwarted more and stronger desires but went on to promote more is a good desire.

Neutral is just that, the action has not made the state of affairs better or worse.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

the meaning of right and wrong, is based on whats good for humans.

Circular. You have defined a value statement as being equivalent to a value statement. Also, 'humans' are not a collective entity; specific humans have real, conflicting interests. A species, on the other hand, does not have interests, values, aims, or preferences.

[Cerrone]

Well of course you have to want to do the right thing. All oughts are qualified by If's. If you want to get to antarctica, you ought to go south. If you want to see at night, you ought to turn on the lights. If you want to make the world a better place, you ought to be a moral person.
Without the desire to make the world better there is no reason to act morally in the first place, this is somethign that is subject in all moral systems, you always need an IF. If you wish not to have your ass fried by god for all eternity, you ought to follow the rules. etc.

But the evident question is "do people want to do the right thing?"

You're saying an ideal state of affairs is desirism which promotes stronger desires and thwarts less appealing ideas, but there are countless examples in day to day life where the right thing to do isn't the most appealing/pleasent thing to do. When faced with a choice between doing something "right" which is unpleasent and doing something which has no obvious impact on the "right thing" but is more appealing to them in fulfilling their immediate desires they're usually going to choose that over the "right thing". I'm not wrong in describing that as "being selfish".

People can only be convinced of a changing particular direction of action when it's made to clear them it will benefit them. In the short term they may not be instantly fulfilled by doing the "right thing", but it will benefit them tenfold in the long term. I suppose i'm trying to convey the merit for those who in their behaviour and thought process favor long term benefits over short term gains, if we need to define the topic somewhat.

You just seem to be lost in your own confusion, people being selfish has nothing to do with the validity of any moral theory, it's simply a fact about this world that has an impact on the wright and wrong of moral action inside the theory.

So how exactly is moral theory at all relevant when you construct it without taking into the account the actions and behaviour of people that the theory is attempting to be applied to? Makes no sense.

Can you cite my argument when stating these conclusions so i can see where you've gone wrong?

You've got it wrong here too. A better state of affairs is one in which there are more and stronger desires promoted than at the present. This is a state of affairs in which people get to do more of what they want to do whilst having less of their desires thwarted by the desires of others.

Since our desires are what drives all of our action, a better state of affairs is one where we are free to take more action towards fulfilling our desires than we are currently. Desires that lead to a better state of affairs are good desires.

You cannot use desireism to validate anythign other than the impact of desires and whether or not they lead to a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfilled than at the present moment.

No, desirim won't make anyone's choices morally good, it will provide a standard by which we can judge these actions.

lol I guess you're not used to metaphors and rhetoric.. ok well, I was saying there that you're beginning recognise desirism as a natural occurance in behaviour, that's true, but I replied that desirism (when used on its own) is utterly worthless for the primary basis of using it as a yardstick or a moral theory. If you rely on the desires of a selfish man with his own immediate needs as his focus to be the yardstick by which to judge others then you don't set any kind of watermark to better other people, because they'll just be allowed to be as selfish as that man is.

However, if you instruct people (as i said above) to focus on the long term instead of the short term, then they begin to realise that their own immediate fulfillment is selfish and destructive in the long term, and only then when the desires have been modified with perspective and virtue can desirism be put to use to benefit society. Otherwise by itself desirism is just no more of an obvious statement than watching a pigeon pick away at some crumbs and remarking on how it picks away at some crumbs as if its a miraculous event.

No i don't doubt that happens, but negating aid for them is just going to leave them even more at the mercy of certain exploitative companies (stabucks).

It's more likely that the representatives of the exploitative companies would be chased out of the country and whatever resources they left behind would be put to use by the revolutionary forces. Like ohh.. a few south american nations that immediately spring to mind.

We can use praise and condemnation on individuals long term to change their desires, we can threaten them with punishment, which means their desires will be thwarted for proloned periods of time while they are imprisoned. We can also praise and reward good desires to help people desire actions that promote other desires as well as being fulfiled themselves, lik the example of making your friends happy, it's both self fulfilling and promotive of other desires.

That doesn't really work though, prisons are our only real way of punishing, but its a counter productive solution that either destroys people or makes them 10 times worse by the time they're released... at the expense of the heavily taxed civilian. And you can apply that to any kind of punishment really, unless behavioural education is implimented then the person punished won't learn anything from the experience; it's just a short term solution to a long term problem.

The only way to prevent more complicated selfish and destructive desires is to educate people about how those kind of desires will hurt them in the long term.

If someone believes that they are doing the right thing and they actually arent all that means is they are mistaken, this again has nothing to do with determining right and wrong. Intentions play a large part, an accidental wrong is not as bad as an intentional wrong, because the desire to do wrong is stronger than a desire that unintentionally did wrong, even though they might have the same negatvie impact, so in that case the accidental thwarting of desires is less wrong because of the strenght and intention of the desire.

Accidents are forgivable, but ignorance of consequences is no excuse. Again, it comes back to education on the subject.

Short term and long term gains are no different, the impact of the desire is relevent for as long as it has impact. All desires thwarted for any length of time contribute towards how morally bad the initial desire was. If the desire in question intially promoted more desires but long term ended up thwarting more then this was a desire than thwarted mroe and stronger desires than it promoted, and thus is morally wrong.

Neutral is just that, the action has not made the state of affairs better or worse.

Short term/long term are vastly different.

Impacts of actions are felt long after the action has been forgotten, the butterfly effect for example.

And neutral isn't as simple as not taking part, you aid the progress of either course of action or not, by doing nothing simply because you've chosen to opt out leaves others with stakes in either course of action liable to suffer or gain because of your lack of involvement.

[theVOID]

But the evident question is "do people want to do the right thing?"

Some if not most do, obviously, namely because we want to live in a world where we are free to do more of the things we want while suffering less, and this is something that Deisrism can achieve. Regardless, people wanting/not wanting do good does not impact what is determined to be right or wrong

Anyway, This is a problem for all ideas of morality, singling it out for Desirism seems strange to me. Even in a subjectivist sense, whatever people want to do becomes moral, so how do you make people agree on what is right? It's the same problem rephrased, and you aren't going to find any moral theories with an insta-fix solution, but desirism does have a method tending towards this end, namely the use of praise and condemnation to change the desires of others.

You're saying an ideal state of affairs is desirism which promotes stronger desires and thwarts less appealing ideas, but there are countless examples in day to day life where the right thing to do isn't the most appealing/pleasent thing to do. When faced with a choice between doing something "right" which is unpleasent and doing something which has no obvious impact on the "right thing" but is more appealing to them in fulfilling their immediate desires they're usually going to choose that over the "right thing". I'm not wrong in describing that as "being selfish".

Sure, and in that case they are acting immorally or if ignorant, amorally.

Say for example if you find a wallet with cash and a drivers license, it may be more appealing to keep the cash and bin the rest, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. We have a reason to promote the desire to return lost property, because we want our property returned when it is lost also and we want the same for our friends and family, thus a desire to keep the property is not a good desire because it is a desire than tends to thwart more and stronger desires than it promotes.

So we have a reason for action to promote the desire to return lost property.

People can only be convinced of a changing particular direction of action when it's made to clear them it will benefit them. In the short term they may not be instantly fulfilled by doing the "right thing", but it will benefit them tenfold in the long term. I suppose i'm trying to convey the merit for those who in their behaviour and thought process favor long term benefits over short term gains, if we need to define the topic somewhat.

Exactly, we have reason to promote certain desires in others, such as the desire to return stolen property. The long term gains may or may not personally be more beneficial, it depends on whether we are in the same situation, but as long as we have the desire to return lost property then we are fulfilling both our desires and the desires of the person who lost their property. Thus we have a reason for action to promote the desire to return lost property.

If someone chooses to keep the property then they are acting immorally.

So how exactly is moral theory at all relevant when you construct it without taking into the account the actions and behaviour of people that the theory is attempting to be applied to? Makes no sense.

I haven't, you're simply confusing yourself. A moral theory is intended to discern right, wrong, better, worse and establish the categories of Obligated, Permitted and Forbidden etc. That is what Desirism does and in the sense of achieving what a moral theory should, it works perfectly It also acts as a normative moral theory, and you can apply the method to ethics, as I have shown.

People not wanting to behave morally =/= moral theory is wrong. I showed above how the question of "what of people who don't want to be moral" simply gets rephrased in subjectivist theories, which is what I assume you subscribe to? In any case, a person wanting or not wanting to be moral is irrelevant, so is the case of people doing wrong while thinking they are being moral, which is a massive problem in subjectivism, that is why I think theories of moral realism, such as Desirism, are ultimately better.

lol I guess you're not used to metaphors and rhetoric..

No, I just think your application of them missed the target.

ok well, I was saying there that you're beginning recognise desirism as a natural occurance in behaviour, that's true, but I replied that desirism (when used on its own) is utterly worthless for the primary basis of using it as a yardstick or a moral theory. If you rely on the desires of a selfish man with his own immediate needs as his focus to be the yardstick by which to judge others then you don't set any kind of watermark to better other people, because they'll just be allowed to be as selfish as that man is.

And this is where you are totally off track.

In Desirism all desires are considered, not just the desires of the selfish person - That would be Subjectivist desire fulfilment, and i've already said that I am not a subjectivist. If the action of this person is one that tends to promote more and stronger desires in both [/i]himself[/i] and others then it is morally good, even though fulfilling your own desires is always to an extent selfish. However, we have many desires than are both selfish and that benefit others, such as a parent having the desire to keep their children safe, there is the self fulfilling aspect as well as the aspect that promotes more and stronger desires in others. We have a reason for action to promote the desire to keep children safe, because we don't want anything happening to our own children or (in my case) any children at all. This is a desire that is both self fulfilling and promotes more and stronger desires than it thwarts.

However, if you instruct people (as i said above) to focus on the long term instead of the short term, then they begin to realise that their own immediate fulfillment is selfish and destructive in the long term, and only then when the desires have been modified with perspective and virtue can desirism be put to use to benefit society. Otherwise by itself desirism is just no more of an obvious statement than watching a pigeon pick away at some crumbs and remarking on how it picks away at some crumbs as if its a miraculous event.

*sigh* I can see correcting your misunderstanding is going to take a while.

1. Short term vs long term is unimportant, what matters is how many desires were promoted vs thwarted over the entire life of the desire, if it is a desire with long term implications then you have to consider all desires thwarted vs promoted for the entire time the desire is relevant.

2. Someone who has a desire than is solely (or mostly) selfish it is a bad desire. We have reasons for action to promote an aversion to these desires and we do so through our use of praise and condemnation.

It's more likely that the representatives of the exploitative companies would be chased out of the country and whatever resources they left behind would be put to use by the revolutionary forces. Like ohh.. a few south american nations that immediately spring to mind.

Sure it may happen, but some of these nations don't have the resources for food production to meet their population in the way South America does. In any case, this is hardly relevant to whether or not desirism is true, considering the desires involved and the implications of the actions you can determine what action is morally better.

That doesn't really work though, prisons are our only real way of punishing, but its a counter productive solution that either destroys people or makes them 10 times worse by the time they're released... at the expense of the heavily taxed civilian.

1. Imprisonment is a form of condemnation.

2. Some prisoners come out of prison worse, but it's still better than leaving offenders out of jail. Whatever disadvantages there are to a prison system massively outweighs what would happen should we not imprison anyone.

And you can apply that to any kind of punishment really, unless behavioural education is implimented then the person punished won't learn anything from the experience; it's just a short term solution to a long term problem.

Of course it is, but it's also much better than nothing.

And I am all for rehabilitation, it's very much the act of changing people's desires. If you make their desire to be a law abiding citizen, and thus achieve all of the desires available to the law abiding, greater than their desire for gains from criminal activity then you have done exactly what desirism prescribes. We have reason for action to promote an aversion to crime, so changing the desires of criminals is very much part of the framework.

The only way to prevent more complicated selfish and destructive desires is to educate people about how those kind of desires will hurt them in the long term.

Exactly! these desires will thwart more of their own desires than the desire to be law abiding. This makes the desire to be a criminal lower than the desire to be law abiding, and since criminal desires are (often) those than tend to thwart more and stronger desires than they promote we have a reason for action to promote an aversion to crime.

I think we agree on much much more than you think, you just seem to have a misconception that leads you to raising all of these 'non-objections'.

Accidents are forgivable, but ignorance of consequences is no excuse. Again, it comes back to education on the subject.

So you would say being ignorant of the consequences of a decision that thwarts more and stronger desires is equally as immoral is knowingly making a decision that will thwart more and stronger desires?

Short term/long term are vastly different.

They are a non-factor. What mattes is the totality of desires promoted vs thwarted. I hope I've explained why this is sufficiently by now.

And neutral isn't as simple as not taking part, you aid the progress of either course of action or not, by doing nothing simply because you've chosen to opt out leaves others with stakes in either course of action liable to suffer or gain because of your lack of involvement.

I agree, it is immoral not to help someone who is bleeding to death. We have a reason for action to promote the desire to help people in need. This is an example of a moral obligation. If you want to make the world better place (better in a utilitarian sense) then you ought to act like a moral person. A moral person is one who has desires than tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart. The desire to help someone who is bleeding to death is such a desire, we have reason for action to promote this desire in others because we all have an aversion to bleeding to death.