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 24 by 2ndRateMind]

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?

I think harm reduction is the main focus but also, similar to otseng, it is extremely important not to infringe on others' freedom as much as possible. It's why I'm vegan and hate current economic models of wealth hoarding for the rich as it limits the freedom of so many to promote the freedom of so few.

[2ndRateMind]

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

Yes, I have noticed JWs tend to retreat when challenged. But, part of the reasoning process is to submit your contentions to others for rational analysis. That way, you avoid 'group think', the phenomenon where nobody notices an error, because everyone is committing the same error. Believe it or not, constructive criticism is a good thing. If your ideas stand up, you can be more confident in your reasoning. If they don't, you avoid the consequences of any fault.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 24 by 2ndRateMind]

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?

I think harm reduction is the main focus but also, similar to otseng, it is extremely important not to infringe on others' freedom as much as possible. It's why I'm vegan and hate current economic models of wealth hoarding for the rich as it limits the freedom of so many to promote the freedom of so few.

I would agree with pretty much all of that. Do you think it possible, then, to systematise your 'exact standard' into a comprehensive list of moral guidelines?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 33 by 2ndRateMind]

Possibly, I'm not going to attempt for others though, I'm a very self centred person and tend to find it difficult to empathise and "put myself in others shoes" in many meaningful ways. It would be ill advised for me to try and denote how others behave in any authoritative way. I'm happy to criticise and recommend but I wouldn't deign to preach my system as being inherently superior, mostly because of the reasons above.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 33 by 2ndRateMind]

Possibly, I'm not going to attempt for others though, I'm a very self centred person and tend to find it difficult to empathise and "put myself in others shoes" in many meaningful ways. It would be ill advised for me to try and denote how others behave in any authoritative way. I'm happy to criticise and recommend but I wouldn't deign to preach my system as being inherently superior, mostly because of the reasons above.

Yes, I can understand your reluctance. I felt the same way, when I did not believe in God. But, since I found that belief, I have come to think that, if the outcomes of our moral choices are objective, then so must be those morals, also. Nevertheless I would never want to ordain laws, or lay down rules, only recommend guidelines.

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

So, for anyone who has been following this thread, I went out for breakfast this morning. I had Eggs Benedict. And, as is expressly prohibited in Acts 15:29, a serving of Black Pudding (which is made from pig's blood, mainly).

I cannot honestly say that I am no longer thriving or flourishing. Or that my conscience is unduly troubled; quite the reverse, in fact. I come from the tradition of omnivores that thinks if you're going to kill an animal to eat, then you should use every part of it, and waste none of it, out of respect for that animal.

As to whether I will get into heaven or not, I don't yet know. But I rather doubt God will damn me for performing the experiment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 36 by 2ndRateMind]

I don't know how you personally feel regarding minor religious traditions rather than the greater faith but I feel like some of it surely is just cultural and historical rules and regulations. Pork has a common parasite when not handled or cooked properly, you will get sick and it is pretty bad. This may well be why it was regulated against back in the day in the Middle East. Too much blood consumption can lead to haemochomatitis, not to mention blood borne pathogens are common enough that consuming blood has a high risk of infection anyway. Way back when, these things were not well understood, so perhaps the decision was made to outlaw the practice in social custom which eventually translated into the religious culture until it was codified. I know that the sacrificial offerings of the Jews and other religious traditions, especially paganism actually matches pretty well with good herd maintenance to keep the livestock strong as a whole. Culling the sick and old at the right times, etc.

This is all speculation from someone who doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't believe any tradition or text is inerrant, o take it with a grain of salt.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 36 by 2ndRateMind]

I don't know how you personally feel regarding minor religious traditions rather than the greater faith but I feel like some of it surely is just cultural and historical rules and regulations. Pork has a common parasite when not handled or cooked properly, you will get sick and it is pretty bad. This may well be why it was regulated against back in the day in the Middle East. Too much blood consumption can lead to haemochomatitis, not to mention blood borne pathogens are common enough that consuming blood has a high risk of infection anyway. Way back when, these things were not well understood, so perhaps the decision was made to outlaw the practice in social custom which eventually translated into the religious culture until it was codified. I know that the sacrificial offerings of the Jews and other religious traditions, especially paganism actually matches pretty well with good herd maintenance to keep the livestock strong as a whole. Culling the sick and old at the right times, etc.

This is all speculation from someone who doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't believe any tradition or text is inerrant, o take it with a grain of salt.

Yup. I would agree with all of that. Senseless prohibitions make no sense to me. I am inclined to ignore all of them, unless a pertinent rationale is offered.

Incidentally, there seems to be a dearth of meat sacrificed to idols, and meat from strangled animals, at my local supermarket. So, I probably won't be testing these prohibitions out, any time soon. Meanwhile, let black pudding be symbolic of my intent.

As for the likewise ban on sexual immorality; well, I've been there, done that, and got that T shirt. I don't suppose anything I now do or don't do will make any difference at all in respect of my prospects for eternal bliss or torture.

Best wishes, 2RM

[otseng]

[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?)

Yes, I agree it is not comprehensive, but it would be a foundational perspective.

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.

If the drug addict lived in isolation and his habits did not impact anybody, then it cannot be argued what he is doing is ethically wrong. He freely chose to do drugs (though this might be debatable). However, if his habits negatively impact others, then it can be ethically wrong. If he has a family and all of the time and money is used to support his drug habit instead of his family, then it would be ethically wrong. His family members would rather him support the family than for him to do drugs, so their free will decision would be violated.

Many people are addicted to things (phones, video games, alcohol, pornography, food, work, TV, sports, sex, etc). If it's argued that drugs are bad because of addiction, then all of these things can be considered bad too. With the free will theory, addiction does not determine if something is wrong. Only if the addiction affects another person against their free will would it be considered wrong.

[otseng]

I'm currently taking a class on ethical hacking and it reminded me of this thread.

An ethical hacker (also known as a white hat hacker) is the ultimate security professional. Ethical hackers know how to find and exploit vulnerabilities and weaknesses in various systems—just like a malicious hacker (or a black hat hacker). In fact, they both use the same skills; however, an ethical hacker uses those skills in a legitimate, lawful manner to try to find vulnerabilities and fix them before the bad guys can get there and try to break in.

https://www.simplilearn.com/roles-of-et ... er-article

In free will ethics, hacking is considered ethical when the target of the hack freely decided to allow someone to hack into their computer system. Unethical hacking is when permission is not granted to hack into the computer system.