So, this is a question on ethics...

[2ndRateMind]

...I've been thinking about, recently, off and on.

It's about intentions and outcomes. The current state of law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition is that intentions matter. A great deal. If you deliberately and purposefully murder your wife for the life insurance, you can expect a considerably harsher sentence than if you accidentally run her over while parking the car in the garage. Even though the consequences may be the same: one dead wife.

Yet, the three main approaches to ethics, deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics, all seem to stress outcome rather than intention. For deontologists, the idea is to obey the rules, because the rules will determine for you a better outcome (maybe in this world, or the next), than if you simply ignore them.

So far as utilitarianism goes, what is moral is simply the state of affairs that leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Actions and rules are right insofar as they promote that end, and wrong insofar as they don't.

And virtue ethics basically seems to suggest that the best way to achieve eudaimonia, or human flourishing, as an end, is to decide what the virtues are, and live out your life in accordance with developing them.

So, whatever, all the three academically respectable mainstream approaches to ethics appeal to outcome, rather than intention, as their justification for what makes an activity moral or immoral.

The problem with this is that we are not prescient; often enough, we just don't know what the outcomes of our activities may be. The world is complex and complicated, and we do not generally know enough about it to forecast with any accuracy the end result of our actions.

This train of thought leads me to suspect that all we can reasonably be held to account for, (come the end of days), is our intentions. They are more certainly under our own control than outcomes.

So, my question for the forum is, is contemporary ethics misguided in its emphasis on outcomes, or am I misguided in my emphasis on intentions?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 18 by 2ndRateMind]


What do you think it is to be moral...

Well, I'll take my prompt on this from academic ethics, which are not entirely reconciled, as yet.

So:
1) Obedience to the laws (from deontology)
2) Promoting human well being (from utilitarianism)
3) Developing and manifesting virtue (from virtue ethics)

But, of course, ideally all three simultaneously.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And you believe all of those systems of ethics are outcome based? Perhaps morality is necessarily outcome based? Whatever intentions apply to morality may also necessarily be outcome oriented. What is it to be moral and not think of the consequences of your actions?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 18 by 2ndRateMind]


What do you think it is to be moral...

Well, I'll take my prompt on this from academic ethics, which are not entirely reconciled, as yet.

So:
1) Obedience to the laws (from deontology)
2) Promoting human well being (from utilitarianism)
3) Developing and manifesting virtue (from virtue ethics)

But, of course, ideally all three simultaneously.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And you believe all of those systems of ethics are outcome based?

Yup. Exactly that. If these thought models of morality are ever going to be reconciled at all, then I would foresee that reconciliation to be along the lines of outcome.

Perhaps morality is necessarily outcome based?

Perhaps it is. But I think outcome to be transcended by intention, since a) we control our intentions, but not necessarily outcomes, and b) outcomes are generated by the acts motivated by our intentions, and c) intentions are not inconsistent with any of these theories of morality, whereas a focus on outcome has led to considerable dispute amongst more intelligent and knowledgeable philosophers than I can pretend to be.

What is it to be moral and not think of the consequences of your actions?

Exactly. That is precisely what an intention is: I will perform action A, to bring about outcome O, because that would be an improvement I on the currently pertaining situation S.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 22 by 2ndRateMind]

I would argue that b) is only barely true and if that, it has more basis in fantasy. Often, most outcomes have only a passing relation to intention.

Intention matters because it is indicative of what the intending person thinks and wants. Ted Bundy wants to rape and murder women, that is clear from both intention and. It is important to know this intention so that he doesn't affect these outcomes again. The interest in intention is to affect outcomes.

Lastly, if morals necessarily deal with trying to affect outcomes then ethical methodology will also necessarily have some basis in affecting outcomes. Are we in agreement?

Living your life to an exact standard to affect a moral reality is an example of focusing ethical efforts on intention. The fact that a moral reality is necessarily an outcome is just a part of the equation that can't not exist.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 22 by 2ndRateMind]

I would argue that b) is only barely true and if that, it has more basis in fantasy. Often, most outcomes have only a passing relation to intention.

And that is why I feel, come the end of days, all we can reasonably be held to account for is our intentions, rather than the outcomes we actually achieve.

Intention matters because it is indicative of what the intending person thinks and wants. Ted Bundy wants to rape and murder women, that is clear from both intention and. It is important to know this intention so that he doesn't affect these outcomes again. The interest in intention is to affect outcomes.

Yup. Not all intentions are good intentions. Some are very selfish indeed. That doesn't alter the point above, my contention that a just God would judge us on the basis of our intentions.

Lastly, if morals necessarily deal with trying to affect outcomes then ethical methodology will also necessarily have some basis in affecting outcomes. Are we in agreement?

Mostly, I think.

Living your life to an exact standard to affect a moral reality is an example of focusing ethical efforts on intention. The fact that a moral reality is necessarily an outcome is just a part of the equation that can't not exist.

This may be a personal question, which you are entirely at liberty to ignore, but what is the 'exact standard' by which you decide the morality of your own actions and activities?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

OK. So, humour me a little. Explain that reasoning, preferably in words of one or two syllables, so that my poor second rate mind might have some chance of comprehending it.

1. The Creator, as the designer of humans, logically knows the best conditions for humans to flourish.

2. Observation of the application of bible law and principles has proven the above logic (#1) to be consistent with reality.

3. Long term, compliance to biblical law and principle (#2) comes with the guarantee of eternal life and is therefore objectivly worth any short term sacrifice.

4. Short term, compliance biblical law and principle, has an overwhelmingly positive effect on physical, psychological and relational well-being of an individual and is still objectively the wisest and most logical position to adopt.

Given the above considerations obedience to all bible law and principle is the most rational and logical position to adopt.

[2ndRateMind]

OK. So, humour me a little. Explain that reasoning, preferably in words of one or two syllables, so that my poor second rate mind might have some chance of comprehending it.

1. The Creator, as the designer of humans, logically knows the best conditions for humans to flourish.

2. Observation of the application of bible law and principles has proven the above logic (#1) to be consistent with reality.

3. Long term, compliance to biblical law and principle (#2) comes with the guarantee of eternal life and is therefore objectivly worth any short term sacrifice.

4. Short term, compliance biblical law and principle, has an overwhelmingly positive effect on physical, psychological and relational well-being of an individual and is still objectively the wisest and most logical position to adopt.

Given the above considerations obedience to all bible law and principle is the most rational and logical position to adopt.

I dare say. But what does any of that have to do with denying people blood transfusions, to save their lives? Where, in the Bible, is the commandment; 'Thou shalt not have, or allow anyone else to have, a blood transfusion?' I just don't get how people can be expected to flourish (your point 1) if the consistency with reality (your point 2) is that they die, when they could have lived.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by 2ndRateMind]

Regarding a bible commandement see Acts 15:29

Regarding any risk of death when you could have lived - see point #3

Regarding the wisdom of refusing to transfuse someone else's blood into ones body ( florishing) point #4


....and then may I suggest you educate yourself further on the medical effects of blood transfusions.




JW

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 27 by JehovahsWitness]

eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not to do these things. With our best wishes."*

Hmmm. I can see why it might be thought that eating black pudding is unbiblical. Not at all sure that principle can be, or should be, extended to life saving medical procedures, however. As Jesus pointed out, and Pope Francis recently affirmed: 'The law is made for man, not man for the law'.

As for educating myself regarding medical effects, then I am not a doctor, and do not propose to become one. I just regard them, after their long training, as far more competent around health matters than I am or want to be. And I trust them enough to do the necessary, as and when required, to save the lives in their care, to the best of their ability.

But really, as my point of substance, I would want to ask you why you think abstaining from blood is moral? Or, why would a good God want us dead, rather than using the technology available through medical science to keep us alive and flourishing? Or do you really think justice is served by sending people to Hell for having or administering or consenting to a blood transfusion? Or is this just a rule kept because it is in the Bible, and for no other reason? It all seems most odd, to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Acts 15:29 Good News Translation.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by 2ndRateMind]

I don't know which translation you are using but the word used in Acts 15:29 is "apechomai" which should rightly be translated as ABSTAIN
https://biblehub.com/acts/15-29.htm

As for medical decision, I encourage you to listen to what medical experts have to say as to the effects of blood transfusions. If you are going to criticize a position vis-a-vis a medical procedure you do well to know the basics of what what you are talking about.

Regarding morals, I think the topic of the thread is nobody has the absolute on what is moral or not, you will just have to accept that not everyone shares yours.

As long as you don't insult me and mine with the assumption our moral decisions are taken without due consideration of all relevant factors, then I'm happy to leave it at that.




Peace out,


JW

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 28 by 2ndRateMind]

I don't know which translation you are using but the word used in Acts 15:29 is "apechomai" which should rightly be translated as ABSTAIN
https://biblehub.com/acts/15-29.htm

I stated the Good News Translation. Because it seemed to me the best rendition of the context: abstain from (ie, do not eat) sacrifices offered to idols, abstain from (ie do not eat) blood, and abstain from (ie do not eat) animals that have been strangled.

I have to say, the devil that I am, I am tempted to break all these rules, just to see if I still, eventually, get into heaven. They none of them seem to warrant eternal damnation.

Best wishes, 2RM.