In some other cultures intentions seem to matter less, and there it is perfectly possible to desire evil and do good by accident... — ChatteringMonkey
How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei
If the good is accidental, there is no need to consider a moral agent at all. A tree is a good tree if it shelters me or bears fruit. But this is not 'good' in ethical terms. It would be illogical to instruct the surrounding trees to follow the example of the first.
This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions. — Kenosha Kid
I am European myself. If for an action to be good it would need to have been made in good intentions, then there would result some strange outcomes.
For example, let's take a hypothetical scenario.
A man is swimming in the water. His enemy is trying to shoot him. He misses and shoots a shark that was swimming under the water ready to eat the swimming man, and so saves the man swimming.
The intentions of the enemy were evil, but his actions saved a human being, therefore naming them evil too would be against common sense, but, by what you have said, they would, indeed, be evil. — Matei
How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei
I agree, but nonetheless some cultures apparently don't see agency as a central concept in morality. It's a descriptive claim, not necessarily rational or normative. Just picked that up from Sean Carroll's last podcast on W.E.I.R.D.- biases. The rough outline is that we westerners, and our conceptions, are in some respects not representative at all for whole of humanity. Individuality and notions of free will and agency are more typical for cultures that grew out of Christianity. — ChatteringMonkey
How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei
This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions. — Kenosha Kid
Oh absolutely. The Iliad is chock full of people talking about evil arrows and evil spears and evil chariots. But then they don't mean what we mean by evil now.
What I meant was that any culture that holds a person to be evil for an accidental outcome of their benign actions but does not hold the tree to be evil for falling on granddad seems objectively inconsistent. — Kenosha Kid
I have recently found a flaw in my own philosophical views, a bugging inconsistency. — Matei
Good is largely defined as what should be.
And a good thing is a thing that helps said good exist, as it should. — Matei
This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions.
— Kenosha Kid
I find this interesting...
One reason why could be that intentions themselves have no effect on others. I can intend to do harm all day, but no one will actually be harmed until I act, and even then only if I am successful. If no one is harmed, then what is there to justify any moral judgments made on intentions? Also, our intentions are, at least sometimes, caused by whatever outcomes we desire, or don’t desire. So I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say we don’t act on outcomes. If I had no desired outcome, I don’t think I would act at all. Why would I? — Pinprick
One reason why could be that intentions themselves have no effect on others. I can intend to do harm all day, but no one will actually be harmed until I act, and even then only if I am successful. If no one is harmed, then what is there to justify any moral judgments made on intentions? Also, our intentions are, at least sometimes, caused by whatever outcomes we desire, or don’t desire. So I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say we don’t act on outcomes. If I had no desired outcome, I don’t think I would act at all. Why would I? — Pinprick
This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions. — Kenosha Kid
How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei
Does that make me a good man thinking he is evil, or an evil man playing at being good? — Book273
Sure, if we evaluate it in our moral frame it would be inconsistent. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't think it is impossible to condemn someone who intends good or does not intend harm but inadvertently does harm. — Judaka
Sure, if we evaluate it in our moral frame it would be inconsistent.
— ChatteringMonkey
I mean it's logically inconsistent in itself. — Kenosha Kid
I thought he meant that we judge something on what the intended or desired outcome was, not on the actual outcome. And while that seems to be the case for the most part, it isn't that cut and dry. In certain cases we do think intent to harm isn't necessary for something to be immoral, like say in case of doing harm because of drunk driving or negligence. — ChatteringMonkey
If we do not act on our intentions, are they intentions? — Kenosha Kid
I thought he meant that we judge something on what the intended or desired outcome was, not on the actual outcome. And while that seems to be the case for the most part, it isn't that cut and dry. In certain cases we do think intent to harm isn't necessary for something to be immoral, like say in case of doing harm because of drunk driving or negligence.
— ChatteringMonkey
I agree that both have to be considered, but neither are good/bad on their own. You can’t solely look at outcomes or intentions and derive a moral judgment based only on that. For example, is it wrong for me to shove pins in a Trump voodoo doll because I’m intending to do him harm? I don’t think it is since no harm is actually caused. It’s the same thing with outcomes. Is it wrong if a football player tackles another player and unintentionally injures him? Again, I would answer no. — Pinprick
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.