Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 01-31-2003, 05:25 AM

Does the "rightness" of an act mirror the outcome of that act or the intention behind it?

Psycho Economist · 01-31-2003, 05:55 AM

Personal experience will tell you: both. A botched attempt to help someone can be forgiven. Especially if that's obviously the case (to the person on the receiving end who's now worse off or to third-partie observers). An act that makes others better off can be soured by the wrong motives.

We make moral judgements about what we do and see and have done to us and we take both outcomes and motives and even means of accomplishment into consideration. And we weigh them differently too, so we can come up with different answers.

I'll let our resident ethicists tell you what people should do... I'll can only tell you what happens out in the wild, and hopefully try to organize and explain it.

Theli · 01-31-2003, 10:09 AM

Isn't there a problem here?
I mean, most of our moral "rights" and "wrongs" points towards the outcome of an act. Like murder and theft.
Yet, things that happen unintended cannot be blamed on the person who commited the act any more than you would blame him for bad weather. I'm wondering, is living a moral life more a question of will or ability?

I realize that in many situations this isn't a problem, when the outcomes of our actions mirror our intentions.

Jamie_L · 01-31-2003, 10:25 AM

I don't think our morals do point towards the outcome of an act. They point towards the intended outcome of an act.

Is there a moral difference between someone slashing your tire and someone who shoots a gun at you with intent to kill but misses and hits your tire? Same effect, different motive. To me teh latter seems much less moral than the former, because of the difference in intent.

Is there a moral difference between a man who shoots someone with intent to kill and succeds in killing them and a man who shoots somone with intent to kill and only causes a flesh wound? Same motive, different effect. To me, both acts seem equally immoral. I mean, is the second person more moral because he's less competent at firing a weapon?

Jamie

99Percent · 01-31-2003, 11:19 AM

Yes, that is why morality has nothing to do with consequences (consequentialism) because we cannot know and never know the actual consequences of our actions. Therefore actions can only be labeled wrong or right by themselves, not by its possible or even probable consequences or utility.

Theli · 01-31-2003, 02:59 PM

I agree to aprox 85%, but what I'm also concerned with is that it is the outcome, not the intention that affects the victim. And it's because of the possible victims that morality exists in the first place, isn't it? Atleast part of the reason.
I mean, noone would call a person immoral for hating another, or wanting to kill him. ...or?
I realize that bad intent usually leads to victims.

Alonzo Fyfe · 02-01-2003, 06:01 AM

Try this option if you will.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the likely consequences of the universalized intentions evidenced by that action.

You take an act: A killed B. Now, you want to know whether A killing B was right or wrong.

You look at the act and you look for the intentions evidenced by that action. A killed B in self-defense, then A's intention was to protect oneself from harm. B's intention was to do harm.

Universalize A's intention, and generally good consequences would follow. A did nothing wrong.

Universalize B's intention, and benerally bad consequences follow. B's actions were wrong.

So, the real question is not "intention versus outcome", because the best answer is " both intention and outcome" -- but not the intention and the outcome of the act itself (because that can yield contradictory answers), but the outcome of the universalized intention.

A response to previous comments:

Theli: Most of our moral "rights" and "wrongs" points towards the outcome of an act. Like murder and theft.

No. One cannot tell whether a killing counts as "murder" or a taking counts as "theft", purely by looking at the consequences. What we look at is why the person did the killing or the taking, and from this determine if the killing or the tacking is of a species that we want to count as legitimate.

99Percent: Yes, that is why morality has nothing to do with consequences (consequentialism) because we cannot know and never know the actual consequences of our actions....actions can only be labeled wrong or right by themselves.

There is no such thing as "wrong or right by themselves." And every single human action is measured according to expectations about the probable outcome of that action. From setting the alarm clock to go to work in the morning, to actually going to work, to what I do at work, probable consequences guides my actions every step of the way. If we cannot evaluate our actions according to their possible consequences, we would never be able to act.

Theli: I mean, noone would call a person immoral for hating another, or wanting to kill him. ...or?

Well, actually, this is wrong. No person would say that one who hates or wants to kill somebody has done something wrong -- they have not performed a wrong action. But this is because hating and wanting are not actions. Not because they are not wrong. There are pleanty who would say that, even though hating and wanting to kill are not wrong actions, they are still wrong.

Theli · 02-01-2003, 02:05 PM

Alonzo Fyfe...

Quote:

Try this option if you will.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the likely consequences of the universalized intentions...

Stop right there!
"universalized intentions"? What is that?
I'll check the rest of your post later, this term just made be halt.

Theli · 02-01-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

You look at the act and you look for the intentions evidenced by that action. A killed B in self-defense, then A's intention was to protect oneself from harm. B's intention was to do harm.

Universalize A's intention, and generally good consequences would follow. A did nothing wrong.

Universalize B's intention, and benerally bad consequences follow. B's actions were wrong.

What are you talking about... "A did no wrong" and "good consequences"?
A just killed a person. Excacly when did that become good?

I think that when it comes down to "right" and "wrong", self-defence is a very poor justification. I don't see how it can in any way be "good" to hurt another in self-defence.
Outside previous scenario, if a person gets hit in the head, how much does he really care about his assailant's intentions?
I mean, does morality only exist for the sake of the person who has it?

01-31-2003, 05:25 AM	#1
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Intention vs. Outcome Does the "rightness" of an act mirror the outcome of that act or the intention behind it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2003, 05:55 AM	#2
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	Personal experience will tell you: both. A botched attempt to help someone can be forgiven. Especially if that's obviously the case (to the person on the receiving end who's now worse off or to third-partie observers). An act that makes others better off can be soured by the wrong motives. We make moral judgements about what we do and see and have done to us and we take both outcomes and motives and even means of accomplishment into consideration. And we weigh them differently too, so we can come up with different answers. I'll let our resident ethicists tell you what people should do... I'll can only tell you what happens out in the wild, and hopefully try to organize and explain it.

01-31-2003, 10:09 AM	#3
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Isn't there a problem here? I mean, most of our moral "rights" and "wrongs" points towards the outcome of an act. Like murder and theft. Yet, things that happen unintended cannot be blamed on the person who commited the act any more than you would blame him for bad weather. I'm wondering, is living a moral life more a question of will or ability? I realize that in many situations this isn't a problem, when the outcomes of our actions mirror our intentions.

01-31-2003, 10:25 AM	#4
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I don't think our morals do point towards the outcome of an act. They point towards the intended outcome of an act. Is there a moral difference between someone slashing your tire and someone who shoots a gun at you with intent to kill but misses and hits your tire? Same effect, different motive. To me teh latter seems much less moral than the former, because of the difference in intent. Is there a moral difference between a man who shoots someone with intent to kill and succeds in killing them and a man who shoots somone with intent to kill and only causes a flesh wound? Same motive, different effect. To me, both acts seem equally immoral. I mean, is the second person more moral because he's less competent at firing a weapon? Jamie

01-31-2003, 11:19 AM	#5
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Yes, that is why morality has nothing to do with consequences (consequentialism) because we cannot know and never know the actual consequences of our actions. Therefore actions can only be labeled wrong or right by themselves, not by its possible or even probable consequences or utility.

01-31-2003, 02:59 PM	#6
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	I agree to aprox 85%, but what I'm also concerned with is that it is the outcome, not the intention that affects the victim. And it's because of the possible victims that morality exists in the first place, isn't it? Atleast part of the reason. I mean, noone would call a person immoral for hating another, or wanting to kill him. ...or? I realize that bad intent usually leads to victims.

02-01-2003, 06:01 AM	#7
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Try this option if you will. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the likely consequences of the universalized intentions evidenced by that action. You take an act: A killed B. Now, you want to know whether A killing B was right or wrong. You look at the act and you look for the intentions evidenced by that action. A killed B in self-defense, then A's intention was to protect oneself from harm. B's intention was to do harm. Universalize A's intention, and generally good consequences would follow. A did nothing wrong. Universalize B's intention, and benerally bad consequences follow. B's actions were wrong. So, the real question is not "intention versus outcome", because the best answer is " both intention and outcome" -- but not the intention and the outcome of the act itself (because that can yield contradictory answers), but the outcome of the universalized intention. A response to previous comments: Theli: Most of our moral "rights" and "wrongs" points towards the outcome of an act. Like murder and theft. No. One cannot tell whether a killing counts as "murder" or a taking counts as "theft", purely by looking at the consequences. What we look at is why the person did the killing or the taking, and from this determine if the killing or the tacking is of a species that we want to count as legitimate. 99Percent: Yes, that is why morality has nothing to do with consequences (consequentialism) because we cannot know and never know the actual consequences of our actions....actions can only be labeled wrong or right by themselves. There is no such thing as "wrong or right by themselves." And every single human action is measured according to expectations about the probable outcome of that action. From setting the alarm clock to go to work in the morning, to actually going to work, to what I do at work, probable consequences guides my actions every step of the way. If we cannot evaluate our actions according to their possible consequences, we would never be able to act. Theli: I mean, noone would call a person immoral for hating another, or wanting to kill him. ...or? Well, actually, this is wrong. No person would say that one who hates or wants to kill somebody has done something wrong -- they have not performed a wrong action. But this is because hating and wanting are not actions. Not because they are not wrong. There are pleanty who would say that, even though hating and wanting to kill are not wrong actions, they are still wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.