Thoughts? — Tzeentch
A truly moral act therefore needs to be made with good intentions, but also with the understanding required to achieve the intended effect. — Tzeentch
Let's assume they are 'unforeseen circumstances', doesn't that classify as ignorance? — Tzeentch
Doesn't this then reduce to good intentions? What we're really describing here is expectations. Part of making a moral choice is an expectation of an outcome for a given course of action. The actor can only act on likely outcomes based on prior experience and incomplete reason. An expectation of an outcome of one's own actions is an intent. — Kenosha Kid
An act of a person is moral if it is done with the intention of helping another. — Tzeentch
An act of a person is immoral if it done with the intention of hurting another. — Tzeentch
And if in such a situation one does hurt others (without any intention) it is only a matter of ignorance. — Tzeentch
Since a person can never be said to be completely certain of anything, he is always to a degree ignorant, and therefore is not capable of a perfectly moral act. — Tzeentch
the good will is not fully realized unless it encompasses both the end and the means. — Echarmion
I think a well intentioned person "believes they are being moral, and desires to be moral", but their actions may result in immoral outcomes. Ignorance in this case is causing evil, which is immoral. Thus we credit that if the person's ignorance was erased, they would cease to cause immoral consequences with their actions.
So it is the ignorance that is the root cause of evil in this case. But is the person committing an action which results in an immoral outcome? Yes. Good intentions are wonderful because if we erase the ignorance, we hope the person will not commit evil anymore. But the ignorant person is still committing evil. The difference is that ignorance is what must be stopped, not the person themselves. — Philosophim
If you assign an objective value to one, then your determination is always uncertain relative to the other. — Possibility
So, it’s not so much a matter of simply stopping the ignorance. It’s more a matter of interacting with others in such a way that we strive to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. When we isolate or exclude others, we invite ignorant intent. — Possibility
Come to think of it, I wonder if the definitions I have given could be extended to include actions to hurt or help oneself as well. — Tzeentch
Well, this implicates the good will. If I am to help myself, am I allowed to hurt others, and still be moral? — god must be atheist
If you assign an objective value to one, then your determination is always uncertain relative to the other.
— Possibility
How so? — Philosophim
So, it’s not so much a matter of simply stopping the ignorance. It’s more a matter of interacting with others in such a way that we strive to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. When we isolate or exclude others, we invite ignorant intent.
— Possibility
This is not negating the point that ignorance is the problem. You are simply introducing one of many ways to prevent ignorance. — Philosophim
We can determine an action to have a good/bad effect only in relation to an observer; we judge the act to be moral/immoral by relating that position to the awareness/intention of the causal agent. — Possibility
The question I see being problematic with this is what if helping one person inadvertently, or perhaps even knowingly, harms someone else? — Pinprick
Again, basically the same point with this. What if intentionally harming someone helps someone else? — Pinprick
What if it is intentional, like when a boxer intentionally inflicts as much damage as possible within the rules in order to win the match? Perhaps the contractual nature of boxing, and sports in general, eliminates morality? If I say it’s ok for you to intentionally harm me, is it actually ok? — Pinprick
Just thinking out loud here, but maybe you could argue that a perfectly moral act actually requires some level of ignorance. I find it difficult to think of an act that is essentially vacuous, that only affects one person at one particular time and place. Because of this, it is likely that what helps one person may unknowingly harm someone else. So, if one were omnipotent, and was aware of these unforeseen consequences, would s/he even be capable of only intending to do good? Basically, I think most, perhaps all, moral acts are the type of situation where doing A helps B, but harms C. If we have full understanding, then doing A is intentionally causing both harm and help at the same time, which isn’t perfectly moral. — Pinprick
I think a well intentioned person "believes they are being moral, and desires to be moral", but their actions may result in immoral outcomes. — Philosophim
The way I view morality is, that only moral agents can be said to be either moral or immoral. So an outcome (not being a moral agent itself) cannot be said to be moral or immoral, as far as my views go. — Tzeentch
So in these cases one's intentions do not match the actual results. In other words, despite one's best intentions one was ignorant of what was required to achieve the desired results. — Tzeentch
Lets take our friend with a psychological problem again. Lets say I want to help him, and I succeed in doing so. Who or what would be the party that is harmed in this example? — Tzeentch
Isn't this covered by ignorance, though? — Tzeentch
And if someone successfully manages to help someone else, isn't consent implied here? — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.