Does anyone have arguments that judging moral means and moral ends separately would necessarily be incoherent? — Mark S
My behaviour is to break eggs, with the end in mind to make an omelette. — unenlightened
So what’s the ethical or moral consideration of breaking a bloody egg ? — invicta
The moral mean to prevent a murder would be to murder the would be murderer*
In the context above judging them separately would be incoherent as murder is universally wrong/immoral but taken together the moral ends and means are both justified. — invicta
What if you were doing the deed for recreational purposes and the new born was unintended…what then ? Abortion ? — invicta
Moral ‘ends’ (goals) are a state of affairs, or perhaps an idea about a state of affairs as unenlightened suggests. — Mark S
So I think if you keep clear that ends are ideas, and means are behaviour, your separation will work. But you need I think to give priority to behaviour, as the law does – eggs are broken, someone has died. — unenlightened
Can you please describe a moral end? Why not simply describe it as a state of affairs rather than “moral state of affair” (or moral ends as you put it) — invicta
Morality as Cooperation Strategies is a non-zero-sum game. This produces many opportunities to increase the benefits of cooperation without harming others.The greater point is that all moral decisions except the one I mentioned have an element of harm, so that’s inescapable in this universe. — schopenhauer1
From a deontic point of view the moral end is "the good" which deserves unconditional preference over "the bad" or "the evil". This is not a state of affairs but a value-in-itself which may appear to be represented by a state-of-affairs or some action. But as is always the case with mere appearances one can be oh so wrong about their true nature. — Heiko
Morality as Cooperation Strategies is a non-zero-sum game. This produces many opportunities to increase the benefits of cooperation without harming others. — Mark S
To be meaningful don't we have to define what is good as a state-of-affairs? — Mark S
I will simplify the statement-thesis that is included in the question and which is to be debated, as follows:Does anyone have arguments that judging moral means and moral ends separately would necessarily be incoherent? — Mark S
Morality as Cooperation Strategies is a non-zero-sum game. This produces many opportunities to increase the benefits of cooperation without harming others.
— Mark S
That's not true. The mere act of "trying" to cooperate may cause issues relating to autonomy or lack thereof. — schopenhauer1
To be meaningful don't we have to define what is good as a state-of-affairs?
— Mark S
Define? I don't think so. Mediate? May be. We could also point to examples what is bad and leave the conclusion open.
"The good" is that what can be wanted reasonably. Is that a state of affairs? — Heiko
What is the difference between moral and non-moral "ends"? moral and non-moral "means"? Can "ends" be moral with non-moral "means" and/or vice versa? Are the relations of "means to ends" different when both are moral from when both are non-moral? Lastly, is tge distinction 'moral and non-moral' between independent, parallel concepts or is one concept dependent on – contingent to, or subset of – the other concept? — 180 Proof
So, actions (means) should be judged for themselves, independently of the purpose (end) they are supposed to achieve.
Actions have end results, consequences and possible outcomes. They can --and sometimes even must-- be judged for themselves.
As a general rule, the end does not justify the means. — Alkis Piskas
I have never heard of or considered this possibility.nor the means justify the end — Mark S
Perhaps helping others and otherwise being kind could cause issues relative to autonomy or lack thereof, but wouldn’t that be rare? Why focus on possible rare bad effects instead of the normal, plentiful benefits? — Mark S
If we are going to effectively work toward achieving something, here a moral ‘end’, then we have to agree on what we are working to achieve – we have to define it. Sure, if you don’t care about achieving an end then you can leave it undefined. — Mark S
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.