Ethics of an action: Motivation or Effects?

[Lord MJ]

Want your opinion.


What determines that ethics of an action? A person's motivation for performing that act. Or the consequences that act has on other people?


I am having an argument that an act is ethical depending on the motivation, and that the consequences of that act are irrelevant depending on the motive. Furthermore this person argues that if most people would want to engage in a behavior then there is nothing wrong with it, regardless of the consequences of that act.

[Lost Soal]

I would probably go with effect. Say someone wanted to boost their celebrity/political/popularity standing and decided to organise an event to raise so many millions for charity. While their primary reason is to benefit themselves, if doing so accomplishes the goal of raising the millions for a good cause, then your not exactly going to say it was a bad thing to do.

[The Vortex Empire]

I'd say effect, for pretty much the same reason.

[The Vortex Empire]

Elaboration might be warranted, so imagine if some person running for leader of some third-world country organized a charity for homeless/starving people, but he did it to get more people to vote for him. The motivation might not be that great, but the effect makes it a good thing.

[Darth Wong]

If everyone in the world did good things for bad reasons, as opposed to everyone in the world doing bad things for good reasons, which world would be better off?

[wolveraptor]

Fundamentalist Christians have good intentions when they encourage bans on gay marriage and send their gay kids to brainwashing institutions. They honestly think they're saving souls from hellfire. Obviously, having a pure motivation for doing a deed does not make it ethical.

[The Vortex Empire]

If everyone in the world did good things for bad reasons, as opposed to everyone in the world doing bad things for good reasons, which world would be better off?

The world where people did good things for bad reasons. At least good things are still happening there, since in the other world, bad things are happening. When Christian parents indoctirinate their kids, they believe it's to stop their kids from going to hell. Having a good motivation for a bad action does not make it better then having a bad motivation for a good action.

[R. U. Serious]

What determines that ethics of an action? A person's motivation for performing that act. Or the consequences that act has on other people?

YOu can find extreme examples for both where such actions were not ethical, but luckily the world is not made up only of extremes, and luckily it's not black and white either. Both motivation and effects (can) play a role in determining the morality, they are not mutually exlusive. If I had to choose one which would have to carry more weight, I would most certainly pick effects (if they can be reasonably expected to follow from the action), and only after that motivation (and only if it is a very concrete motivation that appears valid to a rational observer with respect to the action). I guess you could also say, that effects are easier to determine, because they are objectively measurable, whereas motivation is a very cloudy subject greatly affected by self-image, honesty, self-delusions etc., therefore making it less reliable as a factor (unless you are omniscient).

I am having an argument that an act is ethical depending on the motivation, and that the consequences of that act are irrelevant depending on the motive.

Sounds like the morality of godfearing/godserving people, who are convinced that they cannot morally fail, as long as they are convinced to follow god's will. But that's just a wild guess.

[Lord MJ]

The argument I'm dealing with is regarding people commiting acts that harm others, and the person I'm arguing that the acts are not unethical if most people would want to do the same thing in the given circumstances.

The effects of the action are totally irrelevant. And any culpability for the effects of the action by the perpetrator are absolved if it can be demonstrated that most people would behave the same way.

[Kuroneko]

Deontological ethics can at least in part be accommodated in a consequentialism by explicitly embracing the distinction between actor and action. For example, it is consistent for a utilitarian to re-interpret Kantian ethics as answering the question "what makes a good person or character?" rather than "what makes a good action?"; the same can be done even more directly for virtue ethics. Although this lessens Kantian ethics somewhat, in the sense that it was not intended to be interpreted this way--Kant would have the morality of an action completely inseparable from the actor--it can lead to interesting fusions of ethical views normally taken to be contradictory (this is often exaggerated). Then again, this move can be done both ways, e.g., by reinterpreting a consequentialist ethic while separating "good" from "beneficent"--a favorable action done with evil intentions becomes simply rather than immoral.

The argument I'm dealing with is regarding people commiting acts that harm others, and the person I'm arguing that the acts are not unethical if most people would want to do the same thing in the given circumstances.

As an argument, it is completely unconvincing. It's not unreasonable that most people would want to take a bundle of money that an inattentive neighbor has left on his porch; wanting something is still distinct from recognizing its (im)morality. As a moral position, this is even less than complete relativism.

[wolveraptor]

In otherwords, an appeal to popularity. "If most people would do it, it must be right." This should be easy to counter. Just bring up the antebellum South as an example of an entire population that's pretty much immoral.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with good intentions. It seems like he's talking about popular motives, not necessarily benevolent ones.

[Darth Wong]

The argument I'm dealing with is regarding people commiting acts that harm others, and the person I'm arguing that the acts are not unethical if most people would want to do the same thing in the given circumstances.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy. And probably a lie too. I've found that a lot of people who want to do something unethical will pretend that EVERYONE would do the same in his shoes, when that just isn't true.

[Kuroneko]

In otherwords, an appeal to popularity. "If most people would do it, it must be right." This should be easy to counter. Just bring up the antebellum South as an example of an entire population that's pretty much immoral.

It's even less than that. The premise is not whether most people would do something, but whether most people would want to do it. Even moral relativism is stronger than this argument.

[Lord MJ]

The argument I'm dealing with is regarding people commiting acts that harm others, and the person I'm arguing that the acts are not unethical if most people would want to do the same thing in the given circumstances.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy. And probably a lie too. I've found that a lot of people who want to do something unethical will pretend that EVERYONE would do the same in his shoes, when that just isn't true.

In this case the person is arguing that the action isnt unethical because most people would do it. I wouldn't be so quick to denounce it as a fallacy either since doing so would consider fallacious the whole study of human motivation. The argument basically saying that it is unreasonable to expect people to not do things that any normal person would be motivated to do in a given circumstance. I still think the argument is wrong because it ignores the fact that people are selfish and that desire does not make a behavior ethical.

I will point out a specific ethical argument I had with someone regarding a situation I was personally involved in. I was working with a business partner and that business partner was responsible for a key contract. He wasn't taking the situation seriously and as a result my tone towards him was starting to get considerably harsher.

He didn't like the way I was talking to him, and eventually the guy just disappeard and stopped returning my phone calls, and my emails. Since he was the point man on that client, and the person refused to transition his knowledge to me, the client, and thousands of dollars were lost. Also since he was my partner it caused issues that exposed me to personal financial liability.

According the person I was debating with that partners actions were not unethical because the persons motivation (not liking the way I was talking to him) makes it a reasonable action to take based on that motivation.

My argument is that the actions are unethical because of the consequences that happenned as a result of his behavior. His "motivation" is irrelevant.

[General Zod]

The argument I'm dealing with is regarding people commiting acts that harm others, and the person I'm arguing that the acts are not unethical if most people would want to do the same thing in the given circumstances.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy. And probably a lie too. I've found that a lot of people who want to do something unethical will pretend that EVERYONE would do the same in his shoes, when that just isn't true.

In this case the person is arguing that the action isnt unethical because most people would do it. I wouldn't be so quick to denounce it as a fallacy either since doing so would consider fallacious the whole study of human motivation. The argument basically saying that it is unreasonable to expect people to not do things that any normal person would be motivated to do in a given circumstance. I still think the argument is wrong because it ignores the fact that people are selfish and that desire does not make a behavior ethical.

It isn't fallacious because the action is necessarily wrong, but it is fallacious because it uses unsound reasoning, as there's always several exceptions to the rule in using an argument like this. If he can come up with something more specific and less general that doesn't rely on a society's whims, then he might have better justification for the action. Several hundred years ago slavery was considered perfectly acceptable because many people approved of it, but that doesn't make it ethically justifiable. For a more extreme example, see the Holocaust.

[Kuroneko]

In this case the person is arguing that the action isnt unethical because most people would do it. I wouldn't be so quick to denounce it as a fallacy either since doing so would consider fallacious the whole study of human motivation.

No, just the extent of its applicability to the situation at hand.

The argument basically saying that it is unreasonable to expect people to not do things that any normal person would be motivated to do in a given circumstance. I still think the argument is wrong because it ignores the fact that people are selfish and that desire does not make a behavior ethical.

Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding his actual position, but it seems to me that any crime for which there was sufficient motive becomes ethical. It's somewhat ambiguous as to whether what is intended is simply motive or motive enough to cause that action for most people. The former case is outright silly, but in the latter case, it's rather dubious whether "most" people would behave that way in the example you cited. The latter might seem prima facie more reasonable, but some particular examples would dispel that illusion. For some psychological studies regarding this, look into the famous Milgram and Zimbardo experiments.

[Darth Wong]

In this case the person is arguing that the action isnt unethical because most people would do it.

Ask him how he defines "ethical". What system(s) of ethical philosophy does he subscribe to? What basic moral principles are the two of you using as a shared common ground for discussion?

I find that 99% of the people I encounter in normal life have never given any serious thought to ethics other than "if it feels like something my mommy wouldn't want me to do, it's unethical". They are often stumped or confused when you ask them to explain what they mean they say "ethical". Many of them think you're trying to play some kind of trick on them, and will accuse you of exactly that.