What Determines the Morality of an Action? My Theory.

[Drvladivostok]

Imagine you were first in the scene of a motorcycle crash, and you found the victim is having a seizure and a hard time breathing, so you try to remove his helmet, good job you ended up snapping his spinal cord. The poor victim might die or worse; you can get sued (Assuming you live in China)!!

Is your actions morally good or not?

Before you answer that, take that motorcycle crash and turns it into a Stock Market Crash, and you as a member of the Congress, your first instinct is to strengthen the Domestic Productivity, you look at all this pesky foreign competitors and decide to quadruple the import tariffs, and also change the mental image of you losing half of your savings in court and your wife divorcing you to the Great Depression. (It really happened that way).

God (And Kant) judges based on intentions, this is a terrible Public Policy Principle, of course God doesn't need Guidelines for Good Governance or Economic Strategies, but humans do, its probably why human economic institutions turns out kind off shitty when using divine principles.

But while Kantian Ethics isn't for the Economist, Utilitarian aren't for the Judges, you can Imagine that a Gang Member is Freed from Charges when the judge declare that he has kill a killer therefore adding a net increase in the live of people, imagine that a person should be by law forced to donate his body to save 5 lives, imagine you going to prison for trying to save a poor biker. Intentions are ingrained in our legal system; Mens Rea.

Change the image of you again to the Congressman that made the Great Depression with the Smoot-Hawley Act, or to a Goldman Sachs Banker unintentionally causing the 2008 Crisis, the Legal Doctrine is the Same. These people cause such damage than a mere gang banger and not one of them ever touch a prison bar.

So what should we do?

While the road to Hell is Mostly Paved is with Good Intentions, the Road to Heaven is never paved with any bad ones, and God is the Divine bouncer not Us. The Truth lies somewhere in between two extremes. While Good intentions are very valuable, people who merely chanty it and ignore the result of their actions either don't have the right kind of Good Intentions and should be altered by people who have Good Means.

Unfortunately People who actually have good means are less popular than those who spend most of their energy of showing their good intentions while ignoring the latter.

 

[Old Things]

While the road to Hell is Mostly Paved is with Good Intentions, the Road to Heaven is never paved with any bad ones, and God is the Divine bouncer not Us. The Truth lies somewhere in between two extremes. While Good intentions are very valuable, people who merely chanty it and ignore the result of their actions either don't have the right kind of Good Intentions and should be altered by people who have Good Means.

Unfortunately People who actually have good means are less popular than those who spend most of their energy of showing their good intentions while ignoring the latter.

Very interesting implications.

I think, at bottom, people are not basically good. As such, our intentions are moral failures much of the time. So you are right that the road to hell is paved in good intentions, but I would not say objective behavior is superior to intentions. You can change people's behavior, but you cannot change their hearts. Theories of mind demonstrate that at least in the way the brain works, you cannot control the volition of a person even though you can control their behavior. So I agree with what you said, I just disagree with the final conclusion.

 

[Drvladivostok]

You can change people's behavior, but you cannot change their hearts. Theories of mind demonstrate that at least in the way the brain works, you cannot control the volition of a person even though you can control their behavior. So I agree with what you said, I just disagree with the final conclusion.

While I agree that some people are just inherently dysfunctional and can't be changed, most people are driven mostly by incentives, there's the bad guys, there's the saints, and there's everybody else, who have good intentions to a cause, but not enough to sacrifice their own well being.

Good Means isn't inherently superior as much as we can't really gauge the intrinsic intentions of individuals, but we can definitely asses the result of their actions more accurately (If we try, even though most people don't). There's nothing easier than to have Good Intentions, everybody cares about homelessness, poverty, etc, and for the few that doesn't we can't really separate the wheat from the chaff, only to guess and predict. These people are never in short supply, but some Good Intentioned people can make Good Result while others are Communists cannot.

So if The Lord wants to make a morally meritocratic system to Winnow the souls on the Judgement day to which goes to making bread or those to throw away he'd Judge Good Means first, but put Extra Point on Good Intentions. Or maybe Vice Versa.

 

[Old Things]

You can change people's behavior, but you cannot change their hearts. Theories of mind demonstrate that at least in the way the brain works, you cannot control the volition of a person even though you can control their behavior. So I agree with what you said, I just disagree with the final conclusion.

While I agree that some people are just inherently dysfunctional and can't be changed, most people are driven mostly by incentives, there's the bad guys, there's the saints, and there's everybody else, who have good intentions to a cause, but not enough to sacrifice their own well being.

Good Means isn't inherently superior as much as we can't really gauge the intrinsic intentions of individuals, but we can definitely asses the result of their actions more accurately (If we try, even though most people don't). There's nothing easier than to have Good Intentions, everybody cares about homelessness, poverty, etc, and for the few that doesn't we can't really separate the wheat from the chaff, only to guess and predict. These people are never in short supply, but some Good Intentioned people can make Good Result while others are Communists cannot.

I agree with you that measuring good behavior is easier. But I have the opposite inclination about people's intentions. By your metric, we only have to look through human history for 30 minutes to see humans are not basically good.

 

[Drvladivostok]

If Elves are Good and Orcs are Bad, we're somewhere in the middle.

When some ISIS fighters Throws people of a Tower he's doing it to follow the Will of God (Supposedly) and make a Divinely Approved system so he can build a system where people can be streamlined to heaven more efficiently, in other words, he have Good Intentions. When Mao advocates for killing Sparrows, eventually killing people by starvation he had the interest of the Chinese interest in mind, What Differentiate Mao with Deng Xiaoping isn't the lack of good intentions but rather good means.

Only God can Afford to judge entirely on Kantian Ethics..

 

[Drvladivostok]

I agree with you that measuring good behavior is easier.

It's easier in the sense that it is more accurate, of course we can predict, a wrong prediction is easier to make than an accurate calculations.

 

[Old Things]

You will probably disagree with this, but here it is:

Luke 6:45 NAS20
““The good person out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil person out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.””

 

[Cognisant]

Human morality is inherently human centric, what we consider "good" is either good for humanity as a whole, our proverbial tribe, or ourselves specifically, and what's "evil" is harmful to humanity, our tribe, or ourselves.

So people aren't on the whole more good or evil, it's more a question of intelligence, as such:

I don't think anyone's intentionally stupid, even when someone does something spiteful to others at their own expense they're doing it to establish a precedent. Like a farmer burning their crops to starve an invading army, if the invaders know the farmer would rather burn their crops than let them be seized that will weigh against the invader's decision to invade that region in future.

Also its worth noting that being "helpless" or a "bandit" isn't always a bad thing. Being generous when you have a surplus is a great way to encourage others to reciprocate this generosity in your time of need. Likewise you need to look after yourself, ideally your actions would always benefit yourself and others but that's not always possible, sometimes you have to put yourself first.

But on the whole I think people are generally more cooperative than not, generally more inclined to benefit others than not, my proof is that society exists and we aren't all cavemen bashing each others heads in whenever someone else has something we want.

We do it with artillery, because we're civilized

MORTARMEN GONE WILD | VET Tv

https://www.veterantv.tvOur show "A Grunt's Life" available on the VET Tv app in the App storeVET Tv has over 100 ...

www.youtube.com

 

[onesteptwostep]

My take is more simple: morality is governed by consensus. It's not the number of people or a divine, singular principle that guides morality, but the consensus that is developed within society. That consensus can be immutable at times, but it can also bend and yield to an argument which leads to a newer consensus. So I guess morality is more of a result of a progression of debates and discussions, and is something that is always in a state wherein it listens to newer developments. I think the emotional attachment we have to a moral issue is like a social contract to the consensus of that society. The emotional attachment or response is a result of the consensus, not that emotions themselves is the source of morality.

(btw metaethics is something that really perks my attention, it's pretty intruging)

 

[Cognisant]

I'm inclined to be more trusting of a high functioning psychopath than someone who's morality is based on their emotions. The former is predictable, pragmatic, can be reasoned with, the latter might cut my head off because I blasphemed against their imaginary friend.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Pretty sure morality is determined by outcomes we want. Goals. These outcomes aren't necessarily virtuous or progressive.

Meaning that two people who have opposing goals, are likely to see the other as immoral.

Most people are compassionate to some degree and so most people do share cooperative goals.

This black and white simplification of good and evil is just that, a simplification for the individual or society to guide them towards the outcome they want. Unfortunately, it also causes people with similar goals, but different methods of achieving them to conflict.

Thus morality is defined as what outcomes is it not okay to have as goals and the criteria for those goals. Enforcement of any respective morality is another thing, having more to do with power.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Pretty sure morality is determined by outcomes we want. Goals. These outcomes aren't necessarily virtuous or progressive.

Meaning that two people who have opposing goals, are likely to see the other as immoral.

Most people are compassionate to some degree and so most people do share cooperative goals.

This black and white simplification of good and evil is just that, a simplification for the individual or society to guide them towards the outcome they want. Unfortunately, it also causes people with similar goals, but different methods of achieving them to conflict.

Thus morality is defined as what outcomes is it not okay to have as goals and the criteria for those goals. Enforcement of any respective morality is another thing, having more to do with power.

I've always been quite suspicious of moral absolutist, but I have more disdain toward moral relativist.

The Consequence of this line of thinking is a psychopathic dog eat dog world where everything goes, people aren't bind by anything but their interest. Even Purely Utilitarian ideals have a moral principles which is based on net benefit to the well-being/happiness of people (Regardless of how difficult they're to calculate).

The Problem with Compassion, cooperation, and power is that eventually you'll have to pick the head honcho to order people around, and most people are influenced more by emotions than they're by reason, there's nothing inherently wrong with this its just that when unreasonable people advocate for unreasonable things they get a pass by the mere virtue of being emotionally engaging, some Austrian Painter said that he reserved emotions for the many and reason for the few, and the many are the ones voted for him.

Moral Relativism is just Moral Bankruptcy. The extent which a society can implement this principles is with a collective body that pretend their admittedly morally relative principles are right; praesumptio iustae causa; Everything the government said is right, until the Government said otherwise; Legal Positivism, even then this principles have moral problems when it comes to differing society, and assumes that child Sacrifices made by the Incas and Aztecs are equally right as Woman's Suffrage, same as that Austrian Painter for that matter.

If Kant Said that Utilitarianism is only useful for English Shopkeepers, then Moral Relativism is not useful at all.

 

[Drvladivostok]

You will probably disagree with this, but here it is:

Luke 6:45 NAS20
““The good person out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil person out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.””

Good as if good deeds, and evil as if sin? Well let god Judge based on his standards, and lets judge on our standards more fit for mortals.

Good and evil as if result? Then my theory is correct (kind off), since people that deliver bad results always have bad intentions, and same goes with the good, and since we can't see truly see people's true intentions then our best indicators are the result.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Moral Relativism is just Moral Bankruptcy. The extent which a society can implement this principles is with a collective body that pretend their admittedly morally relative principles are right; praesumptio iustae causa; Everything the government said is right, until the Government said otherwise; Legal Positivism, even then this principles have moral problems when it comes to differing society, and assumes that child Sacrifices made by the Incas and Aztecs are equally right as Woman's Suffrage, same as that Austrian Painter for that matter.

If Kant Said that Utilitarianism is only useful for English Shopkeepers, then Moral Relativism is not useful at all.

Kant also said that anything that is both a universalism and necessary, is either formed from our ability to reason, or is a figment of our imagination (metaphysics). If it is formed with our ability to reason then we must take catalogue of our mental materials to make sure it is valid and sound. If it's the ladder we should ignore it. Something like that right?

I don't think the words I wrote advocates for moral relativism. I didn't even mention the term. I was making an observation on how things are now. My wording allows for both a subjective framework and a societal framework.

It's very different to say I think morals should align to my interest vs I think morals should end with X outcome. X outcome could very well not be in my interest all the time.