Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Intentions do not matter if the course of action results in killing someone, say. Or hurt their feelings. or cause violence. That action will be judged wrong.
Sure they matter. There’s a difference between killing someone as a result of jealousy vs. fear (self-defense), not only philosophically/morally but often relative to legality as well. What if one’s motivation in stealing groceries is a kid with a hungry stomach; some would empathize and/or see it as more of a necessity than a ‘wrong’. Either way, it is certainly weighed differently on a morality scale than say, one who steals jewelry or a car.
Also, relative to your comment re: feelings; intent is especially important. For example, if someone terminates a romantic relationship (and it hurts the other person), does it make their action wrong? Of course not; they didn’t intentionally set out to hurt them nor could it be avoided. To the contrary, they were morally right to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Patriotism is usually judged as good. For the sake of love of one's country and its security can one one go on a bloody rampage and kill 30,000 innocents including women and children, and cause famine and disease?
It’s not patriotism or the love of one’s country to kill 30,000 folks in it.
Different individuals tend to prioritize different moral foundations in how they evaluate questions of right and wrong in their lives, behaviors, beliefs, and philosophies. These can be connected greatly to the individual's own life experiences and psychology.
For instance I would say that in my own system of beliefs and personal ethics, Care and Fairness and Liberty rank very high, and Authority and Purity (at least some kinds of Purity...religion-centered concepts as opposed to those grounded in science like proper food handling etc) rank very low.
I think it always depends on the situation because things are not inherently black and white. Someone stealing food to feed their starving child is not the same as someone holding up a store to feed a drug habit. Killing yourself because you have an incurable disease and the pain has become 24/7 is not the same as killing yourself because your wife left you. If someone has an automatic weapon and is mowing people down left and right (which happens all too frequently these days), if the only recourse you have is to kill them, then that is the appropriate action.
Even the law courts acknowledge these sort of distinctions when they look at why a crime has occurred. That is always the relevant factor, why did something happen? Could it have been avoided? Was it done out of malice, or was someone just in the wrong place at the wrong time? In the end, we have to decide ourselves what's right and what's wrong at that particular moment in time.
Right and wrong are often contrasted, but how they are similar should also be considered. They both have to do with conventions. Conventions are the rules, or expectations, that are agreed upon by the majority and are expected to be upheld by those in authority. These will vary across space and time and are often developed as a result of consequences. Some conventions may allow learning where a person can question the convention and try to come up with an alternative. Whether or not the proposed behavior becomes conventional depends on whether or not the majority follow it. This is influence. Other conventions can be perceived as "tried and true" so the majority or those in power don't want them questioned.
I would say that if a person is struggling with right and wrong, which are a culture's conventions, they should fall back on observations - the sequence that led to the outcome minus any conclusions of right and wrong.
Right and wrong are often contrasted, but how they are similar should also be considered. They both have to do with conventions. Conventions are the rules, or expectations, that are agreed upon by the majority and are expected to be upheld by those in authority. These will vary across space and time and are often developed as a result of consequences. Some conventions may allow learning where a person can question the convention and try to come up with an alternative. Whether or not the proposed behavior becomes conventional depends on whether or not the majority follow it. This is influence. Other conventions can be perceived as "tried and true" so the majority or those in power don't want them questioned.
I would say that if a person is struggling with right and wrong, which are a culture's conventions, they should fall back on observations - the sequence that led to the outcome minus any conclusions of right and wrong.
In other words, consider the consequences. That is what makes an act right or wrong. There may be unforeseen consequences, but whatever they are that would determine if the action was right or wrong. Stealing bread is conventionally wrong, a crime. If the consequence is that a hungry child is fed, it is the right action.
In other words, consider the consequences. That is what makes an act right or wrong.
Per your perspective, harming one who hurts another could be perceived as ‘right’; it depends on how one interprets the end result/‘consequences’. Some would consider it ‘justice’. Rather, it is about one’s motivation in carrying out the action i.e. an intent to harm another (for any reason) is morally wrong relative to universal ethics.
Per your perspective, harming one who hurts another could be perceived as ‘right’; it depends on how one interprets the end result/‘consequences’. Some would consider it ‘justice’. Rather, it is about one’s motivation in carrying out the action i.e. an intent to harm another (for any reason) is morally wrong relative to universal ethics.
Action speaks louder than words. No matter what one says he intended, the consequence of his action is what is judged as right or wrong.
Action speaks louder than words. No matter what one says he intended, the consequence of his action is what is judged as right or wrong.
I’m speaking to universal ethics, philosophically. That said, morality is individualized; it isn’t for you to judge another’s actions or intent. Generally-speaking, morals (should) guide our decisions or actions based on what we feel is right (and we are aware of our intent relative to what we do). It’s a matter of having a (healthy) conscience.
In other words, consider the consequences. That is what makes an act right or wrong. There may be unforeseen consequences, but whatever they are that would determine if the action was right or wrong. Stealing bread is conventionally wrong, a crime. If the consequence is that a hungry child is fed, it is the right action.
I agree with you. I would also say that after the child has been fed, chances are somebody will reiterate that stealing is wrong.
Obviously, a criminal act is wrong; that said, although law intersects with morality, the discussion (relative to a philosophy thread) is about the latter as opposed to the former. In other words, what guides the individual to do right (vs. wrong) when the threat of legal action or jail is not a consequence? More importantly, what is the measurement of such?
That said, the principles of universal ethics are honesty, preventing harm, benevolence, fairness/justice and so on - not fear (of consequence).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
