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.

[otseng]

I have a personal theory on the ethics of morality. I haven't seen my ideas before elsewhere, but perhaps someone else has thought of it before.

I believe an essential element in the determination of right and wrong is the involvement of free will. What would make something wrong is if someone's free will has been violated. If nobody's free will has been violated, then in all likelihood it won't be considered wrong. Of course, there are other factors that should be considered if something is right or wrong, but free will would be a primary consideration.

Outcome alone cannot be determining factor if something is ethically good or evil. It's possible for two scenarios to have the exact same outcome, but one situation would be wrong and another would be fine.

Some examples. Suppose Cathy gave me $100. Just by looking at this outcome, it's not possible to determine if it's right or wrong. Suppose she gave me the money freely because it was my birthday. She chose to gave me the money so it's ethically OK. However, suppose I held a gun to her head and said she needed to give me $100. It would be ethically wrong because I violated her free will.

Another example. If two people have sex, if both people consent to it, then it's ethically fine. However, if one person does not consent, then it's a violation of free will and it can be considered rape. Here, the outcome is the same, but the difference is the state of the free will. It is the violation of free will that can lead to the charge of rape.

In your example of the murder of a wife. The level of involvement of free will would determine the level of punishment. If someone planned for weeks on how to murder his wife, it would have a harsher punishment than if there was no plan at all and it was an accident. If the husband was determined to be mentally insane, he would have a less severe punishment because of a lack of a free will decision.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by otseng]

I think that is a very useful perspective. I am not sure it is completely comprehensive, and completely definitive, however. (But then, what ethical theory is?) For example, should we deny in law the drug addict the autonomous decision to indulge his or her habit? If so, are we interfering with their 'free will'?

If we do deny them that freedom, we might be said to be contributing to the common good, since any addiction is 'a bad thing' that reduces the scope of free-will; if we don't, we might be said to be contributing to their self-destructive way of life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

...

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.

Utilitarianism is supposed to be consequentialist. It worries about outcome. But, it seems to me -- and I am a utilitarian -- that intent has to come into it. The good act is the one intended to produce the good outcome.

If you intend to murder somebody, and accidentally make her rich, then you did a bad thing.

Deontology is not supposed to be consequentialist. Deontologists are supposed to follow the rules. If lying is bad, then it is always bad, and therefore nobody should lie even when lying would produce a good outcome.

So the part where you say deontologists follow the rules in order to produce the good outcome, that is, I believe, deontological blasphemy. Deontologically speaking, telling the truth is the good outcome, no matter who it hurts.

-

I'm giving my impressions here, not claiming to be an expert.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 4 by wiploc]

Indeed. But only dogs, Germans and Jehovah's Witnesses follow the rules for the sake of following the rules. The rest of us want to know if a rule is moral, and whether obedience will lead to a good outcome, either for ourselves, or for others, depending on the extent of our altruism. And that is the point where deontology becomes consequentialist. Even if you believe you should keep the ten commandments simply because they are in the Bible, the unstated assumption is that living in accordance with Biblical laws is what will get you into Heaven, and that is all about consequences.

In other words, if you want to justify a deontological approach to ethics, you cannot appeal to a rule that says 'keep the rules', because the argument would be viciously circular. You would keep the rule for the sake of the rules, and for the sake of the rules, you would keep the rule.

On the contrary, you need to say precisely why keeping the rules is a good idea independently of the system of rules, and the simplest way to do that, it seems to me, is to appeal to the imagined consequences if everyone kept the rules.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by wiploc]

Indeed. But only dogs, Germans and Jehovah's Witnesses follow the rules for the sake of following the rules.

I will leave any Germans amongst us to pull you up on your racism (or did you mean only blacks follow rules for the sake of following them?).

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses; I can tell you neither I nor the many hundreds of Jehovahs Witnesses I have met "follow the rules for the sake of following the rules". May I ask why you made that statement (I am talking about your blanket statement about my religion not your racist statement about the Germans)?

Did you forget you are not amongst your intellectual peers where it may be acceptable to degrade others in order to elevate your own worldview or were you making a serious point from your observation of dogs and Germans?

JW

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

I retract my remark. I have argued it out on another forum, and have been found to be at fault. So I apologise for any offense I have committed, and any offense I may have given.

But I have to ask you; why do JW's think it right to deny the sick and injured blood transfusions, when they might save lives? This does seem to be a case of following the rule for the sake of the rule, rather than for the morality of that rule. But perhaps you have a different perspective?

Best wishes, 2RM

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by 2ndRateMind]

Apology accepted.

Regarding blood transfusions, not agreeing with a decision should not be confused with concluding a decision has been made without due consideration. While our religious concerns may be of no consequence to you, this does not mean that they are in fact inconsequential. You seem to be making the mistake of concluding that saving ones life is the ultimate goal of all moral decisions (which would mean many a fool is lying on a battle field) as well as presuming you know enough about the medical issues to take an informed position on the use of blood as a medical procedure.

The decision Jehovah's Witnesses make is primarily a religious one, one which we see morally sound and, regarding your original point, not one taken lightly or without due consideration.


JW

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

I do not think your religious concerns inconsequential at all. I am just concerned by their consequences.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

I do not think your religious concerns inconsequential at all. I am just concerned by their consequences.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I appreciate that but I'm sure that you appreciate that being part of a free society is accepting that people may not be operating according to the same worldview as you and sometimes just have to live with our discomfort in the name of tolerance. Some people value a relationship with a God you don't believe in, over and above their own lives and believe that faithfulness to him and his decrees will result in eternal life. That would be the long term consequence of living or dying faithful.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong on this issue.


JW