A morality experiment: Actions versus motivations

[Dominus Atheos]

Rule 1 of this thread: Don't be a pedantic fuckstick.

Imagine a person always performs actions that are judged "morally upstanding" by whatever standards are in place at the time, but always has immoral reasons for them.

An example might include a Christian who gives all his money to the poor, spread the Gospel without being rude or annoying about it, etc; but secretly does it because he believes it is the best way to get into heaven and is actually a bigot with hasty thoughts the entire time he is performing his "morally upstanding" actions.

It's late on a Sunday so that's the best example I can think of right now.

The point is: moral actions vs immoral motivations, which matter?

[Dominus Atheos]

A reminder: Don't be a pedantic fuckstick.

Things you could be a pedantic fuckstick about but shouldn't: The definition of morality, cultural vs religious vs objective; whether it's possible to perform moral actions or have immoral motivations 100% of the time; whether my example actually describes moral actions and immoral motivations.

It's just a little thought experiment I came up with because I was bored on a Sunday night. Please don't hijack it to try to turn it into a big discussion on the nature of morality.

If you want to do that or anything else, please start a new thread.

[Jub]

It's hard to say if he's good or bad unless we know more about him. He could do all his morally good actions, but still preferentially hire people for his company based on his bigoted standards. He could make his donations only to charitable organizations that support his bigoted views while doing some measure of good. These things would tip the scales.

If the answer to the above is no, he just thinks bad things but never acts on them, he's a good person. He may have bad thoughts, but he refuses to act on them and rises above his baser nature.

If the answer is yes, that he does these good things but does still act on some of his bad spots in certain situations, then he's probably still good but leans much more towards being neutral.

[Dominus Atheos]

Was I not clear? I thought I was...

100% positive actions, but 100% negative motivations.

He does not "rise above" his bad thoughts or baser nature, it's just that through amazing coincidence (that's probably impossible in real life) all of his immoral motivations lead to moral actions (possibly because he thinks doing so will get him into eternal paradise, although I'm sure that there are better examples)

[Jub]

If ever action you take results in good, even if you do it for wrong or misguided reasons, you're a good person. From an objective standpoint, your actions have caused good outcomes for those around you. From a social standpoint, it means that your actions have created desirable social change. You simply can't be evil if it's all in your head.

[Covenant]

I seem to have cast the only vote. I voted "other" because I think it's a mixed bag situation. Such a person is "moral" but not good. This person is acting good only to the level of the moral standards of the time, as per the thought experiment their motivations are selfish and their own biases are terrible. The crux of this is, I believe, in asking if we would want many of these people. I think we would not. While these people measure up to a standard of goodness and morality, they can never advance those standards to the benefit of others, as their motivations are selfish.

In a completely self-contained system, where such people do not have children and pass on the gospel of selfishness, I would call them moral but not good, as they would probably more happily do evil things than good things, and probably do act terribly in situations not covered by the standards of morality at the time. By comparison a good person would not.

In a more realistic situation I would call them bad people because it is assumed that such people attempt to pass on their self-serving virulent attitudes, have momentary lapses of moral standards, and generally fuck up the picnic for everybody by encouraging a culture of vileness that eventually outstrips the moral handicap.

[Purple]

The only thing that matters is the end result. A guy whose only goal is life is to end babies but whose every attempt at finding a baby to rape not only fails but ends up helping people in their lives is a good person just as resoundingly as a guy whose only goal in life is to help people but ends up hurting them is a bad one. Actions are judged based on their consequences and not their motivations.

[salm]

Actions are judged based on their consequences and not their motivations.

Actions are judged based on their motivations all the time that´s why there are different penalties for commiting a crime deliberately or negligently for example. Or why something like self defense exists.

[Darth Tanner]

Based on your explanation no one will ever know of his internal bad motivations, only ever of his good actions which would be assumed to flow from good intentions. Unless he allows people to know about his bad motivations he remains a good person, and even if he lets people know his bad motivations whilst his actions remain good he remains a good person.

[Starglider]

Please don't hijack it to try to turn it into a big discussion on the nature of morality.

The entire point of thought experiments is to examine definitions, assumptions and limits. If you cannot handle a discussion you shouldn't ask the question. The answer is inherently complicated. mostly because what humans treat as simple moral/philosphical building blocks actually aren't, and thus your demand for a simple answer is misguided.

[Purple]

Actions are judged based on their consequences and not their motivations.

Actions are judged based on their motivations all the time that´s why there are different penalties for commiting a crime deliberately or negligently for example. Or why something like self defense exists.

That may be the legal approach. But we are not discussing legality here but morality. And I think you'll find that in many a thing the two not only disagree but are outright opposite.

[Knife]

Other: under the morals of the time, the person is moral and I'm sure the people he socializes with and the culture he is in would consider him good. It is entirely possible that others in another age with slightly different morals would consider him moral and good.

Unfortunately, your rules cancel out any other interpretations. It does raise the question that if good is only following the current morals?

[Dominus Atheos]

You're right, I screwed up with that description. A better description would be:

Your (as in you, the person reading this) moral standards, whatever those may be.

[salm]

Actions are judged based on their consequences and not their motivations.

Actions are judged based on their motivations all the time that´s why there are different penalties for commiting a crime deliberately or negligently for example. Or why something like self defense exists.

That may be the legal approach. But we are not discussing legality here but morality. And I think you'll find that in many a thing the two not only disagree but are outright opposite.

Often the moriality of things directly influences the way laws are made. Like in the cases of deliberately and negligently or in a self defense case.

Or is a person killing someone in self defense morally on the same level as a murderer?
Not in my book, but perhaps you follow an extraordinary moral system. If so, please explain.

[Borgholio]

I voted "Other". He's a bad person, but doing good things. What defines people the most is what feel and think. If some guy sincerely thinks that black people aren't really people and deserve to be enslaved, or that the Nazis had the right idea with the Final Solution...then that guy is quite certainly a complete asshole (by the standards of most civilized people). So he's a bad person. But if he does things that are out of character for him and result in nothing but benefits for society as a whole, that's a good thing...but it doesn't change who he is on the inside.

So in a nutshell, he's an asshole who does good deeds. But he's still an asshole.

[Starglider]

I voted "Other". He's a bad person, but doing good things.

Borgholio wins the thread. That is already boiling a sentient being down to an eight word description. Insisting on a one word description is just foolishness.

If your intent is to make judgements, you have to have a context. If the observed behaviour for the 'bad' ethical setup is identical to a 'good' ethical setup, the only relevant difference is whether and how behaviour would diverge under different circumstances or changes in factual beliefs, e.g. a crisis of faith. If the 'bad' person stops acting positively after learning, say, that god does not exist, then it is a worse ethical system from an objective altruist standpoint. If they do not diverge, e.g. that old chesnut 'they only do good things because it makes them feel good' regardless of change in religious beliefs, then there is no difference in moral value (in software terms, it's just implementation detail).

[Purple]

Not in my book, but perhaps you follow an extraordinary moral system. If so, please explain.

I'll just address this as it's easier and more to the point. Basically I think that the moral value of an action is determined by the end results of that action. It does not matter what you wanted to achieve but what you actually did achieve. So if you fire a rifle blindly into the air and the bullet falls and kills an innocent that's evil, but if it falls and kills Hitler it's good. The same action with no intention at all having different results leads to a different judgment.

And the question of if a person is good or evil ultimately depends the sum of his actions over time.

[salm]

Not in my book, but perhaps you follow an extraordinary moral system. If so, please explain.

I'll just address this as it's easier and more to the point. Basically I think that the moral value of an action is determined by the end results of that action. It does not matter what you wanted to achieve but what you actually did achieve. So if you fire a rifle blindly into the air and the bullet falls and kills an innocent that's evil, but if it falls and kills Hitler it's good. The same action with no intention at all having different results leads to a different judgment.

And the question of if a person is good or evil ultimately depends the sum of his actions over time.

Ok. So what if you do something that isn´t irresponsible (like firing a gun in the air) and something bad happens?
Lets say you trip and fall on to a toddler, killing the toddler vs deliberately strangleling the toddler. Are these actions morally equal? The end results are the same after all.

[Elheru Aran]

The deeds are good; the person's assholery is somewhat irrelevant except to themselves. Insofar as one's actions do no harm (physical, emotional, mental) to others, what they think and feel is their own deal and doesn't impact anybody else.

I was actually thinking about something similar along these lines earlier because I had an interesting incident happen this weekend. Was out on a date with my wife, and out of the blue the manager of the restaurant shows up and is all gushing about how he's proud of me, I'm so strong and brave, etc, and gives me two free meal vouchers for the next time we come in. Context: I'm deaf, I had been talking to my wife in sign language so it's not like it was a big secret. Take the pity meals or stand up for myself...? I took the vouchers at the time because I was a bit blind-sided, but in retrospect I don't mind it too much.

Yeah, it's kind of semi-offensive that the guy pity-partied on me; I don't need that, and I don't need the free meals. But on the other hand, I suppose the guy thought he was doing us a favor, and so maybe he thinks I'm the type of handicapped guy who needs my hand held to get through life... well, I can change that if I see him again later by attempting to enlighten him in conversation. He had (presumably) good if misguided intentions, I got a net positive out of it (free meal with my wife), I'm not sure I have anything to complain about really other than the fact that he just came up and randomly hugged me while I was sitting at the table. At least say hello first!

[Purple]

Ok. So what if you do something that isn´t irresponsible (like firing a gun in the air) and something bad happens?
Lets say you trip and fall on to a toddler, killing the toddler vs deliberately strangleling the toddler. Are these actions morally equal? The end results are the same after all.

Morally yes, they are equal. The toddler is dead. Our treatment of you as reward/punishment for the act should of course take intent into account. But fundamentally the act you have described evil. That's how stuff like self defense laws work. "You did an evil deed, but we forgive you because X, Y or Z make it desirable for us to do so."

[Borgholio]

I'm not sure I have anything to complain about really other than the fact that he just came up and randomly hugged me while I was sitting at the table.

Yeah doesn't sound like a bad thing at all, but certainly weird...

[The Romulan Republic]

I would say other: while obviously no one is perfect, one must have (to some extent at least) good desires/intentions and good actions to qualify as a good person.

Both matter.

However, since we can't read others' minds, its hard to judge anyone on anything besides their actions. Thus, for practical purposes in society, it is generally actions that matter.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm not sure I have anything to complain about really other than the fact that he just came up and randomly hugged me while I was sitting at the table.

Yeah doesn't sound like a bad thing at all, but certainly weird...

Kinda falls under the 'random deaf encounter' category for me. I'm sure other people with handicaps have a similar category of personal interaction. The stranger or minor acquaintance who randomly shows up and starts talking about how they know sign language (or alternatively how wonderful it is I can live on my own or some such pap), the occasional deaf person who I run into unexpectedly, things like that. In this case it was a bit different in how it just came out of the blue. Usually they hold a bit of conversation with you first. *shrugs* Like RR says, the action matters more than the intent behind it, generally...

[Simon_Jester]

You're right, I screwed up with that description. A better description would be:

Your (as in you, the person reading this) moral standards, whatever those may be.

The problem is that this invites ethical debate, which you claim not to want, because it means different people will naturally disagree and discuss that disagreement.

Actions are judged based on their consequences and not their motivations.

Actions are judged based on their motivations all the time that´s why there are different penalties for commiting a crime deliberately or negligently for example. Or why something like self defense exists.

That may be the legal approach. But we are not discussing legality here but morality. And I think you'll find that in many a thing the two not only disagree but are outright opposite.

This is rarer than you might believe, because most legal rulings in a functional society make sense in some ethical system, even if they don't make sense in all ethical systems.

Also, there are numerous ethical systems where actions are judged based on their motivations. In fact, pretty much everything except the most primitive versions of classical utilitarianism do that. They do it in different ways. In some cases they even do it counterintuitively. But they do it.

For example, as I understand Kant, he would judge a person as more ethical and good for doing good things that they dislike doing- at least, if they do so for ethical reasons. Doing nice things for people because you think well of them is easy- doing nice things for people you secretly hate, because it is right, is harder.

However, this is totally different from approving of someone who wants to do evil, and thinks it is right to do evil, but who does good unwittingly or out of fear of consequences.

Not in my book, but perhaps you follow an extraordinary moral system. If so, please explain.

I'll just address this as it's easier and more to the point. Basically I think that the moral value of an action is determined by the end results of that action. It does not matter what you wanted to achieve but what you actually did achieve.

Why?

Morality refers to what it is good to do, not just to what happens to occur as a semi-foreseeable result of what you do.

[Dominus Atheos]

You're right, I screwed up with that description. A better description would be:

Your (as in you, the person reading this) moral standards, whatever those may be.

The problem is that this invites ethical debate, which you claim not to want, because it means different people will naturally disagree and discuss that disagreement.

No not at all, because the exact "moral actions" and "immoral thoughts and motivations" are completely irrelevant to the thought experiment of "is a person with 100% moral actions and 100% immoral thoughts and motivations a moral person or an immoral person?" What actions, thoughts, and motivations those are specifically don't matter at all.