Is my morality moral?

[lazerus]

In a thread here (linky) Sir Nitram and I got into a debate about my morality. As that thread is in the wrong forum for such things, and that argument is a devation from the origional topic, I am creating a new thread about it here.

I will use the firstpost to clarify my position, both because I made a few ill-thought our arguments in that thread (which I later conceded) and for new readers.

-----

I believe that morality is a measure of intent. If you wish to better others at your own expense, it is good. If you wish to harm others for your own benefit, it's evil. Making the situation no better or worse by your presence is neutral. How your actions work out in the end, while it is the determinant of if something is a good idea, dosn't determine if there inherently good or evil. If you honestly believe something is for the good of those around you, while you may be crazy or dangerous, you are not evil.

Admittantly, this makes most acts fall under the catagory of "neutral". For instance, a company that uses the status of the labor market to reduce it's employes to effective-slave status would still be neutral under this definition, even though their actions are obviously sickening.

For sorting out neutral moral acts between whats "good" (to mean positive) and "bad" (to mean negative, not evil), I would look at it from a strictly practical point of view.

[Simplicius]

Just offhand, the problem with an intent-based morality is that intent is an incredibly insubstantial thing, making it impractical as a measure. The results of an action are there for all to see, and frequently take uantifiable form. Intent is something which can't ever be adequately pinned down, can be lied about, or be based on poor logic or moral bankruptcy.

I believe that morality is a measure of intent. If you wish to better others at your own expense, it is good. If you wish to harm others for your own benefit, it's evil. Making the situation no better or worse by your presence is neutral.

What of situations that aren't as clear-cut as giving to charity, robbing a bank, or standing at a street corner? Under a purely intent-based morality, one could apologize for a horrible person who, though he killed millions, thought he was making the world a better place by doing so. How would you reconcile a twisted good intent with an absolutely, inarguably immoral end?

How your actions work out in the end, while it is the determinant of if something is a good idea, dosn't determine if there inherently good or evil. If you honestly believe something is for the good of those around you, while you may be crazy or dangerous, you are not evil.

Why create categories of 'good' and 'evil' and try to fit people into them, when it is simpler - and fairer - to determine the morality of actions and judge people by their actions at any given time? Your system appears to be trying to serve the role of God on Judgement Day, when there really is no call for such a thing even if it were possible.

Admittantly, this makes most acts fall under the catagory of "neutral". For instance, a company that uses the status of the labor market to reduce it's employes to effective-slave status would still be neutral under this definition, even though their actions are obviously sickening.

For sorting out neutral moral acts between whats "good" (to mean positive) and "bad" (to mean negative, not evil), I would look at it from a strictly practical point of view.

What practical use is a system of morality which can't function without the existence of another system of morality? You might as well abandon the rarely-useful window dressing of intent and apply the univeraslly-applicable standard of actions and results, since you'll end up using the latter most of the time anyway.

[SeeingRed]

I think that there needs to be some consideration of effect in addition to intent when determining morality, for just the reasons you gave. It seems to me that creating a category of judgment ("moral" vs. "not moral") for such a narrow range of actions as you described (those that would be considered good or evil, in the third paragraph of your OP) is not very useful.

Although I agree with you that the ultimate result of something isn't as important as its intent in determining whether it's inherently good or evil, I think that at least some consideration of intent is necessary.

[drachefly]

If I understand correctly, then I agree with him. If so, his point is that in principle only choices have moral implications. The way it works out does not.

So, for example, the driver who drives recklessly and does not end up killing anyone is morally equivalent to the driver who drives recklessly and through a series of fortunate coincidences causes no harm.

Similarly, the vigilante who kills the real perpetrator on flimsy evidence is morally equivalent to the vigilante who kills an innocent person on a similar weight of evidence.

Here we get the important caveat: Actions are the most certain window into intents that we have, so we will in general be basing our judgements off of them, not the intentions directly.
However, this is just an approximation we must make in order to be able to apply the rules.

[drachefly]

Also, I think that the corporation which takes advantage of the labor market to get effective slave labor is in fact immoral: whether a contract is typical does not change whether it is equitable.

[Darth Wong]

The very fact that your moral system recognizes only "good" and "evil" extremes, with no way to evaluate the vast majority of actions in-between, makes it rather stunted to say the least.

[lazerus]

Just offhand, the problem with an intent-based morality is that intent is an incredibly insubstantial thing, making it impractical as a measure. The results of an action are there for all to see, and frequently take uantifiable form. Intent is something which can't ever be adequately pinned down, can be lied about, or be based on poor logic or moral bankruptcy.

The very fact that your moral system recognizes only "good" and "evil" extremes, with no way to evaluate the vast majority of actions in-between, makes it rather stunted to say the least.

It dosn't recognize only extremes, it just leaves a very large grey area....which yeah, is impractical.

What of situations that aren't as clear-cut as giving to charity, robbing a bank, or standing at a street corner? Under a purely intent-based morality, one could apologize for a horrible person who, though he killed millions, thought he was making the world a better place by doing so. How would you reconcile a twisted good intent with an absolutely, inarguably immoral end?

Why create categories of 'good' and 'evil' and try to fit people into them, when it is simpler - and fairer - to determine the morality of actions and judge people by their actions at any given time? Your system appears to be trying to serve the role of God on Judgement Day, when there really is no call for such a thing even if it were possible.

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use? It would have to be intent instead of results based, otherwise an act that has unintended consequences would could be classified as good or evil when the prepitrator had quite the opposite intent.

What practical use is a system of morality which can't function without the existence of another system of morality? You might as well abandon the rarely-useful window dressing of intent and apply the univeraslly-applicable standard of actions and results, since you'll end up using the latter most of the time anyway.

Mmm. Let me make an example.

As I said, a corperation exploting it's workers would not, technicly, be evil, but it's obviously bad for the workers, bad for the community, and bad for the nation. So, while that may not be immoral, you shouldn't do it.

[K. A. Pital]

So, while that may not be immoral, you shouldn't do it.

So... you defer to rationalism.

Rationalism is a great basis for actions... but if your moral system prefers to
give rationalism the role of the action guide, what is it's purpose? Why do you need it for, if technically you can make all decisions on the basis of rationalism? Your "intent-based moral code" is NOT rationalism, but you defer to rationalism when it comes to decision making.

That's a worthless code of yours if you ask me. I'd live with simple rationalism, thank you.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

to quote a proverb:

The Oldest Road to Hell is paved with good intentions

[lazerus]

So, while that may not be immoral, you shouldn't do it.

So... you defer to rationalism.

Rationalism is a great basis for actions... but if your moral system prefers to
give rationalism the role of the action guide, what is it's purpose? Why do you need it for, if technically you can make all decisions on the basis of rationalism? Your "intent-based moral code" is NOT rationalism, but you defer to rationalism when it comes to decision making.

That's a worthless code of yours if you ask me. I'd live with simple rationalism, thank you.

M'yeah. I would concur, it's like the difference between an agnostic and an athiest. The agnostic really dosn't add anything.

But, I was asked about a moral code, and under a purly rationalist POV, arn't good and evil meaningless words?

[Darth Wong]

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use?

None. "Good" vs "Evil" is a very childish way of looking at morality. You should view morality as a spectrum of actions, so that one action is more ethical than another, rather than asking whether it's either "good" or "evil".

Take a look at (for example) the medical ethics code. Do you think they classify actions into "good" or "evil"? No, they have a decision-making paradigm which is designed to tell them which is the better action to take when faced with a difficult choice.

[lazerus]

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use?

None. "Good" vs "Evil" is a very childish way of looking at morality. You should view morality as a spectrum of actions, so that one action is more ethical than another, rather than asking whether it's either "good" or "evil".

Take a look at (for example) the medical ethics code. Do you think they classify actions into "good" or "evil"? No, they have a decision-making paradigm which is designed to tell them which is the better action to take when faced with a difficult choice.

Eugh, granted. I made myself look pretty stupid there.

So I take it then, that you too, would take the rationalist approach?

[Simplicius]

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use? It would have to be intent instead of results based, otherwise an act that has unintended consequences would could be classified as good or evil when the prepitrator had quite the opposite intent.

I would still like to see how your system would address the mass-mudering tyrant I used previously. You are confronted with someone who is convinced, by hateful bigotry, that he is doing the right thing by deliberately expunging an entire population. Under an effects-based system, his actions are immoral in the extreme, thus tainting his character as a moral person. Under your system, what?

Consequences of complete accidents are another matter entirely.

Mmm. Let me make an example.

As I said, a corperation exploting it's workers would not, technicly, be evil, but it's obviously bad for the workers, bad for the community, and bad for the nation. So, while that may not be immoral, you shouldn't do it.

Where does intent fit into this? Is the company attempting to do good for others, or for itself? Is it "[m]aking the situation no better or worse by [its] presence"? Or is it none of those three?

I don't think you grasped the point to which you responded. You say that, in the end, the company shouldn't act as it does even though you have proclaimed its actions morally neutral. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Well, you say that it's bad for the community, the workers, and the nation. You have just used an effects-based system of morality to judge the company's actions, even though you previously tried to shun such a system. You tacitly recognize that your 'good, evil, and grey' categorization is inadequate when compared to a spectrum of morality.

My point was that your intent-based system is purposelessly redundant, in that it does the same thing as an effects-based system in the few regimes where it works, and must be replaced by an effects-based system in the many regimes where it does not. You might as well discard it, as it offers nothing save a facile, inaccurate, and useless dichotomy of good and evil.

[Covenant]

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use?

None. "Good" vs "Evil" is a very childish way of looking at morality. You should view morality as a spectrum of actions, so that one action is more ethical than another, rather than asking whether it's either "good" or "evil".

Take a look at (for example) the medical ethics code. Do you think they classify actions into "good" or "evil"? No, they have a decision-making paradigm which is designed to tell them which is the better action to take when faced with a difficult choice.

Eugh, granted. I made myself look pretty stupid there.

So I take it then, that you too, would take the rationalist approach?

I'm not a moral relativist, I don't think that a cultural justification for a destructive action makes it a morally positive activity. But you seem to be looking for a way to catagorize things in terms of their inherent goodness and evilness, which isn't relative enough to be a viable, reasonable moral system.

I mean, it's fully functional from a zealot's point of view, but until you have a cause to which you want to affix your moral compass (religion, country, power, pleasure, etc) you're going to be making arbitrary and extreme distinctions, and that's just pretty much insanity.

So if you want something that actually provides you with a worldview you can use to make decisions rather than just... decide, post-op, if it was eeeevil or saintly, you need something that not less about good and evil (which are not really even moral principles at all--morals should be between right[/i ]and wrong) and more about the ethics of a decision. And ethics has a much firmer logical construct. You can always choose to act unethically as well, but unlike good and evil, an unethical act usually has a quantifiably more substantive reason why it's wrong to act that way.

[Darth Wong]

The root problem is that when lazerus looks at a system of morality, he primarily wants one that will give him a way to declare that he's "free and clear". That's why he keeps asking in the other thread for the magic point at which something becomes moral; he wants some system that will rubberstamp his life decisions and say "You're OK! You don't have to feel guilty for anything!"

That's why he stubbornly resists the notion that an ethics system is for making decisions, not for being able to happily declare that you're in the clear.

[lazerus]

Granted, but, what definition of good and evil would you use? It would have to be intent instead of results based, otherwise an act that has unintended consequences would could be classified as good or evil when the prepitrator had quite the opposite intent.

I would still like to see how your system would address the mass-mudering tyrant I used previously. You are confronted with someone who is convinced, by hateful bigotry, that he is doing the right thing by deliberately expunging an entire population. Under an effects-based system, his actions are immoral in the extreme, thus tainting his character as a moral person. Under your system, what?

Consequences of complete accidents are another matter entirely.

Mmm. Let me make an example.

As I said, a corperation exploting it's workers would not, technicly, be evil, but it's obviously bad for the workers, bad for the community, and bad for the nation. So, while that may not be immoral, you shouldn't do it.

Where does intent fit into this? Is the company attempting to do good for others, or for itself? Is it "[m]aking the situation no better or worse by [its] presence"? Or is it none of those three?

I don't think you grasped the point to which you responded. You say that, in the end, the company shouldn't act as it does even though you have proclaimed its actions morally neutral. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Well, you say that it's bad for the community, the workers, and the nation. You have just used an effects-based system of morality to judge the company's actions, even though you previously tried to shun such a system. You tacitly recognize that your 'good, evil, and grey' categorization is inadequate when compared to a spectrum of morality.

My point was that your intent-based system is purposelessly redundant, in that it does the same thing as an effects-based system in the few regimes where it works, and must be replaced by an effects-based system in the many regimes where it does not. You might as well discard it, as it offers nothing save a facile, inaccurate, and useless dichotomy of good and evil.

Mmmph. Very well, conceded.

[lazerus]

The root problem is that when lazerus looks at a system of morality, he primarily wants one that will give him a way to declare that he's "free and clear". That's why he keeps asking in the other thread for the magic point at which something becomes moral; he wants some system that will rubberstamp his life decisions and say "You're OK! You don't have to feel guilty for anything!"

That's why he stubbornly resists the notion that an ethics system is for making decisions, not for being able to happily declare that you're in the clear.

Ad hominim attack, and a bad one at that, given that you know nothing about me or how moral or immoral I may be in my actions. Please, you can make better personal attacks then that.

Oh, and BTW. Fuck you you arrogant meglomanical retard.

[Covenant]

The root problem is that when lazerus looks at a system of morality, he primarily wants one that will give him a way to declare that he's "free and clear". That's why he keeps asking in the other thread for the magic point at which something becomes moral; he wants some system that will rubberstamp his life decisions and say "You're OK! You don't have to feel guilty for anything!"

That's why he stubbornly resists the notion that an ethics system is for making decisions, not for being able to happily declare that you're in the clear.

That is a problem. Guilt is really just a human response, and freeing yourself from any sense of guilt doesn't mean in the slightest that your ethics or orality actually is sound. If one really wants to be able to sleep soundly at night, using an ethics structure to make sound decisions is the first step towards not having anything worth feeling guilty for.

Ethics and morality aren't rugs you just sweep guilt under, afterall. If you feel guilty for a decision you made while under an ethical mindset, and need something to quench it, then you're probably actually feeling guilty for something worthy of feeling guilty for. If your arbitrary religiosity says you're going to hell for "___" reason, and that makes you feel guilty, then your internal dialogue should find most quickly a flaw with the "Evil because I said so" type of dialectical morality. Once you shift to a reasoned ethics basis, that guilt should go away too. But guilt is not a flawless arbiter of right and wrong, and letting go good and evil as viable moral conclusions is one way to minimize unnecessary and unwarrented guilt.

Embrace guilt, and use it to build on your ethical system, and always challenge it. Challenge your ethics as well. A strong system can survive dissection, it's only the weakest of systems that makes you base it on faith and the pure wishes of children for some grand, fair aribter.

At least I think that's how it's done. I'm speaking mostly from my own feelings here, I'm not sure if I'm articulating these concepts correctly. I haven't had any major ethical questions recently.

[Darth Wong]

The root problem is that when lazerus looks at a system of morality, he primarily wants one that will give him a way to declare that he's "free and clear". That's why he keeps asking in the other thread for the magic point at which something becomes moral; he wants some system that will rubberstamp his life decisions and say "You're OK! You don't have to feel guilty for anything!"

That's why he stubbornly resists the notion that an ethics system is for making decisions, not for being able to happily declare that you're in the clear.

Ad hominim attack, and a bad one at that, given that you know nothing about me or how moral or immoral I may be in my actions. Please, you can make better personal attacks then that.

Do you even know what an ad-hominem attack is, moron? Why don't you explain which particular point of yours I was attempting to refute with that post?

Oh, and BTW. Fuck you you arrogant meglomanical retard.

Awwww, I hurt widdle baby-boy's feelings! Grow up, dipshit. You keep insisting that people give you some magical point at which a moral system will rubberstamp actions and say that they're A-OK; this is not a speculation; it is an OBSERVATION of your arguments, in which you have repeatedly DEMANDED this magic free-and-clear point.

[lazerus]

The root problem is that when lazerus looks at a system of morality, he primarily wants one that will give him a way to declare that he's "free and clear". That's why he keeps asking in the other thread for the magic point at which something becomes moral; he wants some system that will rubberstamp his life decisions and say "You're OK! You don't have to feel guilty for anything!"

That's why he stubbornly resists the notion that an ethics system is for making decisions, not for being able to happily declare that you're in the clear.

Ad hominim attack, and a bad one at that, given that you know nothing about me or how moral or immoral I may be in my actions. Please, you can make better personal attacks then that.

Do you even know what an ad-hominem attack is, moron? Why don't you explain which particular point of yours I was attempting to refute with that post?

Oh, and BTW. Fuck you you arrogant meglomanical retard.

Awwww, I hurt widdle baby-boy's feelings! Grow up, dipshit. You keep insisting that people give you some magical point at which a moral system will rubberstamp actions and say that they're A-OK; this is not a speculation; it is an OBSERVATION of your arguments, in which you have repeatedly DEMANDED this magic free-and-clear point.

You said that my system of morality was inspired purly by the fact that I wish to be self-indulgent, this has an inherently negative connotation given that it's a moral code. You were attacking my point by attacking me, Ad Hominim. This is a bit of a moot point given my concession to Stas Bush regarding rationalism.

And, given that I find this "debate" about as appealing as having my eyes removed with rusty pliers, I end it. I concede, my discussions with Stas Bush have resulted in a change in the way I interpret actions morality (though the practical upshot is the same).

[Darth Wong]

You said that my system of morality was inspired purly by the fact that I wish to be self-indulgent, this has an inherently negative connotation given that it's a moral code. You were attacking my point by attacking me, Ad Hominim. This is a bit of a moot point given my concession to Stas Bush regarding rationalism.

No, I'm attacking YOU by attacking you. You can't quote the specific point of yours that I'm attacking in this manner, because there was none. That's why it was a separate post, not made in response to any particular point of yours. But obviously, you're too fucking stupid to grasp the definition of what a logic fallacy actually is.

And, given that I find this "debate" about as appealing as having my eyes removed with rusty pliers, I end it. I concede, my discussions with Stas Bush have resulted in a change in the way I interpret actions morality (though the practical upshot is the same).

Frankly, I don't see any evidence that you get it at all.

[lazerus]

Frankly, I don't see any evidence that you get it at all.

I don't. But I respect the "Back up your claims or concede" rule, and as I am no longer inclined to continue this debate, I give up, as it were.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't.

Okay, read carefully. You made a moral system where people are saved from moral responsibility to help others - especially if they were not the cause of a hardship itself. This moral system is full of shit and totally worthless. Which is what many people here had been telling you all along.

The Randist idiocy that "no one is obliged to anyone" is a full-of-shit absolution from responsibility to others. You used this bullshit notion as a starting point in your system - no wonder it failed to condemn the exploiting corporation on the basis of intent, because it assumes that there is no moral responsibility to help anyone whatsoever. And that's bullshit.

[ray245]

To make the differences in morality more distinct, maybe we should based it on 'will the action help or destroy our species'

Some of you might argue with me the argument is flawed, but try looking from another point of view. Many of our 'morality' is based on surival instinct as a species. Many of our laws are based on this. Is killing of own species a right act? Overall, our view of right and wrong is still mainly based on our basic instinct for survial.

[Medic]

To make the differences in morality more distinct, maybe we should based it on 'will the action help or destroy our species'

Some of you might argue with me the argument is flawed, but try looking from another point of view. Many of our 'morality' is based on survival instinct as a species. Many of our laws are based on this. Is killing of own species a right act? Overall, our view of right and wrong is still mainly based on our basic instinct for survival.

That's not a particularly uplifting observation either.

An unstated point you made is that we're PAST a bare-survivalist mentality. We have a stable and functioning society with a high standard of living. Relatively speaking though, a very small number of people enjoy a stupendously extravagant standard of living while others aren't able to afford health care, send their children to a college eduction WORTH approximately, what, $23000 [it was in an N&P thread] and many people take on 2 jobs to get enough money just to reach a "living wage" which affords them some very basic necessities. As mentioned in this thread, when the work force grows elderly and no one can physically hack it, society WILL collapse, the effect of which will be morally repugnant, to turn a blind eye to such a thing.

Society at large is driven by the working man and women, why cannot they reap the benefits of societal advancements at large? From THAT point of view, the most rapacious corporations are seen in a very, very dim light. This is America after all; the richest nation on Earth, amazing it's not also the healthiest and smartest.