| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Acts and consequences |
|
I think intent must always be considered.
|
coopershawk
12-Dec-09, 20:16
|
|
|
the question
The question sounds to me like it is based on linguistic confusion. IMHO, a "thing" is virtually
never "good," in itself. It's only a quirk of language makes it seem that the question makes
sense. But I tend to think that about many questions that trouble philosophers.
|
|
Well...
If the good thing isnt good because it is done for a bad reason then is it good in the first place?
I would say no.
And if that is correct then we dont have a question to answer.
What is good and what is bad?
How do we define it?
|
|
a moral ethic
It is a moral ethic....or what we called the Yina and Yang balance. Both good and bad can't be separated.
|
|
People
So say I save the earth from an approaching asteroid. But then, with the fearsome resources I must have at my disposal, I proceed to kill them all off with robots instead (far fetched I know). Is the act of saving the earth good even though I do it for a bad reason?
|
|
Hi j2000, great question
Though I'm not sure I understood your example above. Here's some examples I used to help crystalise the question in my mind:
1. A woman gives money to charity (good act?) to ease her conscience over a robbery she has committed (bad motive?)
2. Another woman commits a robbery (bad act) in order to give money to charity (good motive?).
If "good" acts have positive social impact and "bad" acts have negative social impact, then it becomes a question of the extent to which society benefits or suffers at the hands of an individual act (which is impossible to measure, especially as we have no idea of all the future repercussions)
If "good" acts are selflessly intended and "bad" acts are selfishly intended, then it becomes a question of the extent to which an act is altruistic or not (which is also impossible to measure empirically)
Essentially, the question pits the two definitions of "good acts" against each other (good act = "well intended" v good act = "having positive social impact").
I think the question goes to illustrate how "good" and "bad" are linguistically loose and subjective notions based on personal and social codes.
I believe that there are no intrinsic "good" or "bad" values in the intent nor in the consequences of the specific act. The "good" and "bad" values are endowed by observers and participants, according to their own value and belief systems.
|
|
I think the end doesn't justify the mean. Basicaly that means just because the lady gave the money to charity doesn't mean robbing the bank is any less bad.
|
|
Rilke
Do you believe that anything is truly "good" or "bad", or are these just relative? For example, Hitler probably thought that killing millions of Jews was a good thing, and he did it for what he thought was a good motive (creating a master race), so is either act or motive good or bad.
Surely there are some intrinsically good and bad things regardless of the motive.
|
|
Vid1
Who exactly decides that robbing a bank is "bad". What if it is an crooked bank, full of swindled money? Does that make robbing it any less bad?
|
|
j2000
"Surely there are some intrinsically good and bad things regardless of the motive."
No, I dont think so. All you have is motive, action, consequences and interpretations. Having an overall judgement of good or bad implies an overall judger.
|
|
Vroom
So the fact that Hitler thought that what he was doing was good makes it good?
|
|
Moral sense test
moral.wjh.harvard.edu
This is a really good one.
Not a "test" as such, but it does map your moral codes against the average, for specific areas. Well worth the few minutes to register & complete the questions.
|
|
j2000
Nope.
|
|
obsteve
I'll have a go later
|
|
j2000
"So the fact that Hitler thought that what he was doing was good makes it good? "
Perception is reality.
|
|
Untateve
So if I think that the U.S. has just fired its entire stock of nuclear missiles at your house, does that mean that in a few hours you will be vaporized?
|
|
If you perceive it so, it is so. I have interviewed individuals who steadfastly believe that the government has placed recording devices in their home, that they are being followed, and that many mean them harm. I classify this as a persecutory delusion. To them, it is reality. If you believe my home is vaporized, to you, it is so.
|
|
Hi J2000
See the thread titled "truth" for untateve's interesting stance on "reality"
|
|
Untateve
In that case, nobody would ever change their mind, because in their reality, what they thought was right would be right for ever.
|
|
j2000
I disagree. New information can become available that can change one's view/belief/perception.
At one time, the reality was that the sun revolved around the earth. New information became available and now we perceive that the earth revolves around the sun.
You could travel to my home to decide if nukes had vaporized my home. You could very well decide upon finding my home in place that my home had not been attacked/destroyed. With this new information, you perception of reality may very well be altered.
|
Log in 
