Then the sequence is not incomplete. Good intention, bad outcome, wrong. You added “bad action” in the middle but if “bad action” is literally “bad outcome” (because that’s how you defined it) then it’s redundant. — khaled

Here's the sequence again:
good intention: to help A
bad/inappropriate action: take away A's phone
bad outcome: A misses an important call


Another one:
good intention: to help A
good/appropriate action: instal app to A's phone that blocks FB
good outcome: A can still use the phone normally for important calls

if “bad action” is literally “bad outcome” (because that’s how you defined it)

Can you copy-paste based on which words of mine you surmise that?

So, it's a dilemma then. — TheMadFool

It's a dilemma if our aim is to judge, condemn, and punish others (or ourselves).

For all practical intents and purposes, the primary use of a moral theory seems to be precisely to judge, condemn, and punish others (or ourselves). Have you ever seen a moral theory be used for some other purpose?

We have control over our intentions

What do you mean by that?

Have you ever tried to give up a bad habit? Would you say that in the process of doing so, you always had control over your intentions and your intentions were exactly what you wanted them to be?

how do you tell what a bad action is from a good one? — khaled

Personally, I believe that there are three kinds of actions, depending on where/how in reference to the person they occur: mental, verbal, and bodily; ie. whether one performs the action with one's mind, one's tongue, or one's body. (I am well aware that people usually don't view this this way.)
Then, depending on quality, there are another three kinds of actions: good, bad, and neutral.

If an action leads to harm and suffering for oneself, for others, or both, it's bad.


See here, the Buddha's advice to his son.

I think politics does that all on its own - no help from me. It's like that old joke. You can tell when a politician is lying. His lips move! — counterpunch

What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace!

Make friends with the abyss and carry on. — Book273

Ah, dragons have high standards.

It seems unreasonable to me that intentions are all that matter. For example: If A is addicted to their phone I can intend to help them by taking it away, but then only result in A missing an important call and losing their job. Good intentions, bad outcome, and wrong. — khaled

This is incomplete.
The sequence should be: Good intentions, bad action, bad outcome, and wrong.

Your intention to help is good. But there is a considerable range of options (with different outcomes) to review as to which action to do in order to act on that intention to help. Instead of taking away their phone altogether, you could install an application that blocks Facebook on A's phone, for example.

In your example, the fault is not with the intention, but with the particular action taken in the name of that intention.

Who sits opposite and why? — counterpunch

You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth.

But an inquiry into the meaning of Buddhism at the basic level is a very different matter. — Constance

Do you know how many ideas there are about what "the meaning of Buddhism at the basic level" is? As many as there are people willing to entertain them.

You've never read anything by Kierkegaard, have you? I mean, quite seriously, you haven't read a thing of the man who affirmed God over reason. Armchair?

Four years ago, I discarded all the books I had of his and all the notes I made. So I'll just summarize: I was not impressed with his work. Affirming God over reason seems quite ordinary to me.

And you spend so many words on justifying ad hominem arguments?
Off the deep end, I'd say.

*sigh*

No matter, I am right, my detractors wrong. I can argue this very well, and it is the genuine foundation for moral realism and the reality of the self. — Constance

But let's say I decide to live as a hermit. Okay, well now my life would contain a great deal of undeserved suffering, for living such a life would be extremely unpleasant.

Of course, it is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to live such a life, and unreasonable to expect that any offspring one creates will adopt it. Most of us live our lives in ways that cause considerable undeserved suffering to other creatures. Our lives also contain much undeserved suffering - but if we went out of our way to prevent causing undeserved suffering to other creatures, then our lives would contain even more. — Bartricks

The Jains propose to have a solution for this.
They aspire to live the lifestyle you describe and they seem to be happy with it.

As far as I understand, it teaches that life is suffering — khaled

No, it doesn't.
Life Isn't Just Suffering

not that people are on average bad for each other. On the contrary, Buddhism also emphasizes the Sangha or “community” as a very important tool for your journey to be free of suffering, definitely not as its cause.

Associating with run of the mill people (the average) is conducive to suffering, which is why one is told to avoid false friends and fools, and to instead seek noble friendship.

Well first off, it’s not inevitable at all. Maybe in the modern day it’s difficult to live as a hermit, but if humans were always a bad influence on each other on average we would have never formed groups.

A band of gangsters are a bad influence on eachother, but they still stick together. Living with others is a mixed bag of experiences: some good, some bad.

And secondly if it was inevitable, and it was also true that humans are a bad influence on each other, then you’d expect the average human to be miserable which is also not the case.

You think the average human isn't miserable?? They are enlightened?

how can I improve my comprehension and my memory regarding philosophy? — deusidex

By deciding what your purpose for reading those texts is, and then reading those texts with that purpose in mind.
And making notes and reviewing them regularly.

I think this is demonstrably false. If this were true then humans would be each better off living as hermits. And you would expect that when they live around each other that they’ll all be miserable — khaled

Actually, early Buddhism teaches something similar (and it prescribes celibacy as a prerequisite for liberation from suffering).

So it must be that the average human is a positive influence on others. — khaled

Or perhaps this is backwards, and we ascribe positive influence of one person on another because to think otherwise, while inevitably living with one another, would be demoralizing.

My assumption was that nature is a fixed thing for the individual, something determined by his or her genetics. — Todd Martin

How do you know whether a particular child has a bad/perverse nature due to genetics, or whether it is due to poor parenting?

Irrespective of how individual businesses fare, the market as a whole would contract. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, and as long as capitalists are willing to adapt, this is not a problem for them.
The kind of capitalist who just aims to have 100x more than a poor person seems to be more flexible and better off. Because it seems to be always possible that a person can be much better off than the poor, regardless of the state of technology/civilization.

But owning a lot of wealth in absolute terms (such as 1,000 kg of gold or 5,000 km2 of land) seems to be much more difficult with a shrinking market, so fewer people will be able to do so.

Well, a person reflecting on their own actions is the primary application of morality. — Echarmion

This is extremely charitable!
Based on my experience, the primary application of morality is to judge others.

Nevertheless, most legal systems deal extensively with the issue of establishing intent, so it is possible to judge.

It's possible to ascribe intent, it's possible to accuse a person of a prticular intent, yes.
But intent is, in its nature, private. It cannot be up to a jury or forensic experts etc. to be the ones who decide what a person's intent truly was; they can only accuse a person of a particular intent and support this accusation with particular evidence.

As for the legal use of establishing intent: this makes for a statistical minority, given that a person typically has numerous intents in any given period of time. Building a moral theory on something that is a statistical minority is problematic.

Take a look at the typical fate of a business with falling or static stock prices. It's a problem. — Kenosha Kid

It's a problem for that business, but not for capitalism on the whole. One business fails, and another one flourishes. That's capitalism.

Isn't he talking about what the Prince should do? — Banno

There has been a long debate as to whether the text should be taken at face value or not:
Interpretation of The Prince as political satire or as deceit

Yes, someone will ALWAYS have an advantage. You are looking for heaven on Earth. It's simply not possible. — synthesis

I'm saying you are the one looking for heaven on Earth, when you say:

the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis

Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption). — synthesis

So from both ends, a contraction in the population is a contraction in the markets. — Kenosha Kid

Which is still not a problem, as long as the capitalist aims to be proportionally/relatively wealthier than others.
Ie. for such a capitalist to be successful, wealthy means to have x-times more than others. Whether this means having 10 billion when others have 10,000, or whether this means having ten horses while others have one donkey.

How many Christian sects are there and which Christian sects subscribe to which beliefs. — TheMadFool

In general, it is the Protestants who value faith above deeds, and the Catholics who place a greater value on deeds than do Protestants.

See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_works

Not relevant. This thread is about whether an act that creates equal quantities of undeserved pain and non-deserved pleasure is good or right. — Bartricks

You want to meaningfully talk about pleasure and good/right without reference to people??

Ergo, intensionalism is a more reasonable theory of morality than consequentialism. — TheMadFool

The downside of intensionalism is that intention is private and cannot be reliably known by external observers.

A person can always say "I meant no harm" after they had done something that had bad consequences. Then what?


I think that intensionalism has the best prospect of being true as a moral theory, but it is also useless because of its extremely limited application (it's, at best, applicable when a person reflects on their own actions in private, and to a limited extent in interpersonal relationships in which there is trust).

What is obvious is that a capitalism that destroys its own worker and consumer base is not capable of sustaining itself. — Kenosha Kid

As long as there are so many people on the planet, there is no danger to capitalism.

People have always lived and died for ideas anyway.

Contrary to what you assert, it is not relevant. The soundness of an argument is unaffected by the motives of the arguer. — Bartricks

I'm not talking about soundness, but content.

Surely you can imagine that you will provide a different line of reasoning if you are asked why you personally don't have children, as opposed to if you're asked to explain why people at large or some particular person or group of persons should not have children.

Christian morality revolves around deeds, don't they — TheMadFool

Depending on the Christian sect.

sinuous — TheMadFool

You know what else is sinuous? Tapeworms. Eh.

On a general note: What is the purpose of antinatalist arguments?

To convince people at large not to have children?
To justify why one doesn't have children?
?

Because the purpose of an antinatalist argument factors in its content.

Well, everybody has to put on their big-boy pants and figure it out. — synthesis

In a Mad Max scenario?

And I don't believe the planet has much to worry about. It will rid itself of us when the time is right.

Oh, you mean it like that. As if Earth should look forward to becoming more like Triton ...

the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis

This is simply unrealistic.
Those who have more power, more resources can afford not to respect the rights of others and get away with it.

If someone wrongs you and you don't have the money to sue them, you're screwed.

Ideology — Kenosha Kid

I'm afraid that this is a matter of ideology.
How are people going to change their consumer habits if they don't first change their minds?

Actually, yes, I suppose there were general electric car battery subsidies that inevitably funded lithium ion battery research. — Kenosha Kid

I'm talking about, for example, the state paying part of the price if you choose to buy an electric car or install a solar system on the roof of your house.

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. — synthesis

The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.

An example of such a difficult situation is consumerism, which, if left unchecked, is on the trajectory to destroy the planet.

Lithium batteries in cars aren't produced by state intervention, — Kenosha Kid

No, they encouraged by state intervention, such as through subsidies for "green technology".

but by corporations responding to demand for cars that don't burn fossil fuels.

The state, if it would be a moral agent acting morally, would intervene with 1. this demand, and 2. the response of corporations to it.

Of course, the potential price of acting morally for any agent are poverty and extinction.

Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. /.../ This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. — Kenosha Kid

Take, for example, Scandinavian countries and their use of electric cars. Seems nice and environmentally friendly, yes?

Except that the damage is done elsewhere on the planet. Parts of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina are destroyed in the process of producing lithium for batteries for electric cars.

And where is all that electricity for electric cars supposed to come from?

And so on.

As a prestigious figure, instead of being reprimanded or thrown into a Victorian-era prison, he took his numerous child photos. — FrankGSterleJr

What happened to other people (presumably,mostly men) who took such child photos in those times in England?

Although they might also be best placed to survive the collapse of capitalism — Kenosha Kid

Of course. Natural selection.

Why did Keats' poem attain such a status in popular culture?
This might answer the puzzle a bit.


Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness,

/.../

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."


https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44477/ode-on-a-grecian-urn

Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid

That would be natural selection at its finest.

justice is not a concern in the ethics of reproduction. — Kenosha Kid

For whom? Says who?

So, what do you think? Does the fact that acts of human procreation can reasonably be expected to create lots of undeserved suffering and non-deserved pleasure imply that they are overall morally bad? — Bartricks

In some schools of Buddhism, they would probably something like that, yes.