The goodness of an action is completely independent of the actions effect on the moral worth of the person doing the action

[wishIwasSalludon]

I was scrolling on instagram and saw a reel of a person saving a baby puma

Adorable right but my initial reaction was pretty cynical

I thought “the only reason they bothered to save that animal was because it is cute, if it were a snake or a cock roach they would have left it to die”

So then I had to ask myself was what that person did really “good”

It basically boils down to one question, does intent matter?

The answer is that intent matters for determining the effect on the moral worth of the person but it is Independent of the goodness of the action itself

For example

Take scenario 1:

Person A by all accounts is a morally “average” person they then wake up and decide for some reason to go take a knife, go outside and stave person B to death.

Now let’s say it turns out that person B was actually in the future going to become a super villain who ends the world and makes humanity go extinct

Was the action of killing person B good? The answer is absolutely yes, person A literally saved the world.

But we all at the same time know that the fact person A decided to do this makes them morally reprehensible

Let’s do another example but the opposite to further drive the point down.

Scenario 2:

Person C is by all accounts a morally “average” person

Person C for whatever reason go outside and enters a delirious state which causes him to hallucinate that another person(let’s call them person D) has a firearm and is killing people in the street.

Person C sees this and takes a knife and stabs person D to death.

Person D in reality is innocent, so we can all agree that the action of killing person D is bad.

And yet can we truly say that person C is evil for this? I don’t think we can rationally say he is. In fact it shows that he has excellent moral character he was just misguided.


Conclusion:

So in both scenarios the conclusion is clear, intent does not matter in determining whether an action is good or not but does matter in determining the effect on the persons moral worth

So someone can do a good thing but that action makes them less good of a person, while someone can do a bad thing but you can argue that makes them more good of a person.

Thoughts?

Where have I gone wrong

@imontheloose @Mainlander

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Dnr

 

[Mainlander]

You are not wrong what so ever

 

[Mainlander]

Dnr

Did read

 

[amp]

I was scrolling on instagram and saw a reel of a person saving a baby puma

Adorable right but my initial reaction was pretty cynical

I thought “the only reason they bothered to save that animal was because it is cute, if it were a snake or a cock roach they would have left it to die”

So then I had to ask myself was what that person did really “good”

It basically boils down to one question, does intent matter?

The answer is that intent matters for determining the effect on the moral worth of the person but it is Independent of the goodness of the action itself

For example

Take scenario 1:

Person A by all accounts is a morally “average” person they then wake up and decide for some reason to go take a knife, go outside and stave person B to death.

Now let’s say it turns out that person B was actually in the future going to become a super villain who ends the world and makes humanity go extinct

Was the action of killing person B good? The answer is absolutely yes, person A literally saved the world.

But we all at the same time know that the fact person A decided to do this makes them morally reprehensible

Let’s do another example but the opposite to further drive the point down.

Scenario 2:

Person C is by all accounts a morally “average” person

Person C for whatever reason go outside and enters a delirious state which causes him to hallucinate that another person(let’s call them person D) has a firearm and is killing people in the street.

Person C sees this and takes a knife and stabs person D to death.

Person D in reality is innocent, so we can all agree that the action of killing person D is bad.

And yet can we truly say that person C is evil for this? I don’t think we can rationally say he is. In fact it shows that he has excellent moral character he was just misguided.


Conclusion:

So in both scenarios the conclusion is clear, intent does not matter in determining whether an action is good or not but does matter in determining the effect on the persons moral worth

So someone can do a good thing but that action makes them less good of a person, while someone can do a bad thing but you can argue that makes them more good of a person.

Thoughts?

Where have I gone wrong

@imontheloose @Mainlander

dnr but i think morality does not exist in the greater scheme of things. there is only aesthethic criteria in morals. butterfly vs insect etc

 

[Mainlander]

The part with the puma reminds me of this Nietzsche quote

if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, if you kill a butterfly, you are evil

 

[amp]

i guess nature supports bp

 

[amp]

The part with the puma reminds me of this Nietzsche quote

if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, if you kill a butterfly, you are evil

LOL thats what i just mentioned rn aesthethic beauty by Jietzche

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

The part with the puma reminds me of this Nietzsche quote

if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, if you kill a butterfly, you are evil

The way most humans think of morality is self contradictory and an absolute joke

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

The part with the puma reminds me of this Nietzsche quote

if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, if you kill a butterfly, you are evil

Lowkey a blackpilled quote

 

[Mainlander]

Lowkey a blackpilled quote

Its my second favorite quote ever

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

The part with the puma reminds me of this Nietzsche quote

if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, if you kill a butterfly, you are evil

Inb4 some midwit say “but butterflies are less harmful the cockroaches”

And completely misunderstands the overall point of the quote

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Its my second favorite quote ever

“One must imagine Sisyphus happy”

It’s a bit cliche but it’s stuck with me

I feel as though I’m constantly pushing a boulder uphill only for it to roll down

I’m going to have to find some comfort in this reality

 

[imontheloose]

It’s hard to exactly reason these sort of “what if the person you killed was absolutely going to be bad”. Surely most would argue that it’s evil to kill and the fact you were unaware of what would happen makes it evil. The only people who say the opposite are utilitarians who view it as a net positive.

 

[Mainlander]

“One must imagine Sisyphus happy”

It’s a bit cliche but it’s stuck with me

I feel as though I’m constantly pushing a boulder uphill only for it to roll down

I’m going to have to find some comfort in this reality

Man is never satisfied, for the will is an insatiable engine of desire; every fulfillment only gives birth to new cravings, leaving true contentment forever out of reach - Schopenhauer

gives the same vibe as “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”

Human always want more and we will never be truly satisfied like Sysphus who is pushing the boulder without ever coming to an end

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Surely most would argue that it’s evil to kill and the fact you were unaware of what would happen makes it evil.

Agreed I would say my example in scenario 1 is decidedly weaker in supporting my viewpoint

You could also make the same argument but with any other actions we traditionally deem morally good or bad

It doesn’t necessarily have to be killing, so this criticism doesn’t really address the overall idea of what I’m trying to say but it’s more of an attack on my formalism

But I would say scenario 2 drives the idea of what I’m trying to come across home

Because everyone would agree that if you saw someone massacring people in the street it would be justified to kill that person.

You may then say “you’ve stated multiple times you don’t believe morality is real so how can it make sense for you to talk on what’s good or bad?”

Well the answer is even though logically speaking I don’t believe morality is real it’s impossible to live life like that.

For example if I met someone who would kill babies after raping them I would be disgusted as well as angry and although im not a violent person

I would probably try attacking them.

When I talk about actions being good or bad or a person being good or bad I’m speaking practically not objectively.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

It’s hard to exactly reason these sort of “what if the person you killed was absolutely going to be bad”. Surely most would argue that it’s evil to kill and the fact you were unaware of what would happen makes it evil. The only people who say the opposite are utilitarians who view it as a net positive.

Man is never satisfied, for the will is an insatiable engine of desire; every fulfillment only gives birth to new cravings, leaving true contentment forever out of reach - Schopenhauer

gives the same vibe as “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”

Human always want more and we will never be truly satisfied like Sysphus who is pushing the boulder without ever coming to an end

I only make two kinds of threads

 

[imontheloose]

Agreed I would say my example in scenario 1 is decidedly weaker in supporting my viewpoint

You could also make the same argument but with any other actions we traditionally deem morally good or bad

It doesn’t necessarily have to be killing, so this criticism doesn’t really address the overall idea of what I’m trying to say but it’s more of an attack on my formalism

But I would say scenario 2 drives the idea of what I’m trying to come across home

Because everyone would agree that if you saw someone massacring people in the street it would be justified to kill that person.

You may then say “you’ve stated multiple times you don’t believe morality is real so how can it make sense for you to talk on what’s good or bad?”

Well the answer is even though logically speaking I don’t believe morality is real it’s impossible to live life like that.

For example if I met someone who would kill babies after raping them I would be disgusted as well as angry and although im not a violent person

I would probably try attacking them.

When I talk about actions being good or bad or a person being good or bad I’m speaking practically not objectively.

Scenario 2 is just about lack of moral responsibility due to cognitive incompetence. It’s absurd to consider, but it’s like how children cannot be held liable for crimes like an adult would due to the difference in cognition and maturity: the adult actually knows what he is doing, the child likely doesn’t.

I do get your overall point. I’m purposefully being pedantic; playing Devil’s advocate if you will.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Scenario 2 is just about lack of moral responsibility due to cognitive incompetence. It’s absurd to consider, but it’s like how children cannot be held liable for crimes like an adult would due to the difference in cognition and maturity: the adult actually knows what he is doing, the child likely doesn’t.

I do get your overall point. I’m purposefully being pedantic; playing Devil’s advocate if you will.

Im gaming rn will respond later

 

[imontheloose]

Im gaming rn will respond later

Pat.

 

[Everythingislaw]

Scenario 2 is just about lack of moral responsibility due to cognitive incompetence. It’s absurd to consider, but it’s like how children cannot be held liable for crimes like an adult would due to the difference in cognition and maturity: the adult actually knows what he is doing, the child likely doesn’t.

I do get your overall point. I’m purposefully being pedantic; playing Devil’s advocate if you will.

You seem wise bro. Did you read a lot of books to gain this knowledge, how do i become like you?

 

[GhostBoySwag]

yes and no and yes

the snake and cockroach example you gave was a bad example
We are taught and learned that snakes are dangerous and venimious
and cockroach well idgaf what school teaches, we kill them all

meanwhile a baby puma is an important animal to our world.
there are billions of cock roaches
meanwhile there are probably just thousands of puma

but i understand where you are coming from
but its a bit to much overthinking

 

[nobodylovesme]

Was the action of killing person B good? The answer is absolutely yes, person A literally saved the world.

Doesn't this tie up to your original point of the Puma example. Morals having aesthetic criteria. Can't really argue it is a good thing

But yes, imo person's personal moral good comes from the framework he works in, and is it a good or a bad thing depends who is the person looking. If you kill a person who becomes bad in the future, I wound't call that the person did a good thing. He did a thing... that happened to turn out good.

while someone can do a bad thing but you can argue that makes them more good of a person.

So my answer is no. It's just luck, essentially. And luck is not an virtue that adds to the "goodness" of a person, I would say.

 

[JasGews69x]

Whats a good person?
What is good?

 

[imontheloose]

You seem wise bro. Did you read a lot of books to gain this knowledge, how do i become like you?

I’m not as wise as you seem to think I am, sadly. I did read a lot of books, however!

YouTube is a pretty useful site if you prefer to hear and view things. The books I read are pretty boring. You’re better off becoming curious yourself and asking questions; once you have a question you can’t reason, look for a solution. I guarantee you there is one.

Humans have lost that curiosity they once had! Before worrying about the source of knowledge, get curious and you’ll find the source to your question that resonates best with you.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Scenario 2 is just about lack of moral responsibility due to cognitive incompetence. It’s absurd to consider, but it’s like how children cannot be held liable for crimes like an adult would due to the difference in cognition and maturity: the adult actually knows what he is doing, the child likely doesn’t.

I understand what you’re saying but it fails for two reasons

We still acknowledge that children can do good and bad things despite their lack of development

Everyone would say that a child sharing their lunch with a kid who doesn’t have any is doing a good thing.

We also would agree that a child who hit another child did a bad thing.

Acknowledging that a child can do good or bad is different from saying they should be held responsible

Just like how we can still talk about a child’s actions being good or bad we can still consider the actions of person C to be good or bad.

The second reason is the child has different mental faculties which when properly developed would cause them to act differently

In my example(maybe I should have explicitly said this) but the only thing that’s changed for person C is their perception.

Nothing else about their mind has been altered, in other words they still would have responded the same way if person D was actually massacring people.

Now this doesn’t mean that person C should be held responsible for person D’s death.

But it still does say a thing about the character of person C

 

[Everythingislaw]

I’m not as wise as you seem to think I am, sadly. I did read a lot of books, however!

YouTube is a pretty useful site if you prefer to hear and view things. The books I read are pretty boring. You’re better off becoming curious yourself and asking questions; once you have a question you can’t reason, look for a solution. I guarantee you there is one.

Humans have lost that curiosity they once had! Before worrying about the source of knowledge, get curious and you’ll find the source to your question that resonates best with you.

Yeah i do that asking questions part a lot with chatgpt because i have no other to do it regularly with and although i am mostly content with the responses i get from it, the little conspiracy theorist in me is still not fully satisfied because i am slightly worried that chatgpt may not be giving me the answers that it thinks as the truth but rather gives the answers that the people who created the chatgpt would want the users of it to be and try to mold us into that character. What do you think on that?

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Doesn't this tie up to your original point of the Puma example. Morals having aesthetic criteria. Can't really argue it is a good thing

There was no point I was making talking about the puma

It was just background information as to why I decided to ask if the intent of an action effects whether it is good or bad

I wound't call that the person did a good thing. He did a thing... that happened to turn out good.

You’re missing the point I don’t think you’re getting the overall idea of what I’m saying but instead are hung up on the example

The point is the intent doesn’t affect the goodness of an action but it does affect the moral worth of the person.

Like if a man saves a woman from being murdered we will agree that he did a good thing

But if he saved her from being murdered so that he could rape her no one would reasonably say that him saving her from being raped somehow improved his moral character.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

YouTube is a pretty useful site if you prefer to hear and view things.

Audiobooks are underrated

Let’s say you have a 20 minute drive to work

You put on an audio book

That time adds up

 

[imontheloose]

I understand what you’re saying but it fails for two reasons

We still acknowledge that children can do good and bad things despite their lack of development

Everyone would say that a child sharing their lunch with a kid who doesn’t have any is doing a good thing.

We also would agree that a child who hit another child did a bad thing.

Acknowledging that a child can do good or bad is different from saying they should be held responsible

Just like how we can still talk about a child’s actions being good or bad we can still consider the actions of person C to be good or bad.

The second reason is the child has different mental faculties which when properly developed would cause them to act differently

In my example(maybe I should have explicitly said this) but the only thing that’s changed for person C is their perception.

Nothing else about their mind has been altered, in other words they still would have responded the same way if person D was actually massacring people.

Now this doesn’t mean that person C should be held responsible for person D’s death.

But it still does say a thing about the character of person C

Perception is linked to the mind, but I accept your first point. I agree. That guy can do good and bad like a child from our perspective, but surely the question is if he should be penalised for it. That puts it into a much more, definitive wrong, someone would argue.

I imagine our reason for despising the ill-sensed when they follow their senses and do wrong is because we cannot relate to it; it’s alien; it seems totally wrong and who cares that you see something else? It’s hard to want to understand someone who commits the least socially acceptable crime.

 

[Debetro]

Any judgement is rooted in our biological instincts.

 

[Debetro]

Audiobooks are underrated

Let’s say you have a 20 minute drive to work

You put on an audio book

That time adds up

Work

 

[imontheloose]

Yeah i do that asking questions part a lot with chatgpt because i have no other to do it regularly with and although i am mostly content with the responses i get from it, the little conspiracy theorist in me is still not fully satisfied because i am slightly worried that chatgpt may not be giving me the answers that it thinks as the truth but rather gives the answers that the people who created the chatgpt would want the users of it to be and try to mold us into that character. What do you think on that?

It does have bias obviously and it will defend a specific side, but philosophy is different to conspiracy theorems. You can go down a huge rabbit hole of conspiracies theories, but I don’t waste my time on them. I need to see the evidence; I don’t like guesswork.

 

[imontheloose]

Audiobooks are underrated

Let’s say you have a 20 minute drive to work

You put on an audio book

That time adds up

I was in traffic for an hour coming home today.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Work

Being NEET mogs but I will have to go back to school soon

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

I was in traffic for an hour coming home today.

I think I’m going to start using audiobooks more

It just seems so insanely convenient

You could be cooking and also learning at the same time

You don’t digest the information as well as just reading it

But it’s still useful and more productive than not doing it

 

[nobodylovesme]

There was no point I was making talking about the puma

It was just background information as to why I decided to ask if the intent of an action effects whether it is good or bad

Yeah, I kinda understood, i was being a phaggot

You’re missing the point I don’t think you’re getting the overall idea of what I’m saying but instead are hung up on the example

The point is the intent doesn’t affect the goodness of an action but it does affect the moral worth of the person.

I do understand that. I was saying, how the moral worth is assessed by the framework he is working in. Like in your hallucination example, the person is working morally, given his state and framework he is working in. The thing he did was morally good, if the action turned out bad, it doesn't make him a worse person imo, it was just bad luck. And imo, luck shouldn't play a part when assessing did he do a good thing. Bad in a unilateralism way, but good personally.

So someone can do a good thing but that action makes them less good of a person, while someone can do a bad thing but you can argue that makes them more good of a person.

Did you mean this in a outside view? Like in uliterianism lens. As in that I would agree. But if we are judging the thing he did, it should be judged on the framework he was working in.

 

[imontheloose]

I think I’m going to start using audiobooks more

It just seems so insanely convenient

You could be cooking and also learning at the same time

You don’t digest the information as well as just reading it

But it’s still useful and more productive than not doing it

In traffic, an audiobook is fantastic. Same as on the motorway. Low attention drives can be very boring — a sign to learn!

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

In traffic, an audiobook is fantastic. Same as on the motorway. Low attention drives can be very boring — a sign to learn!

On an unrelated note

Anytime I see those animal rescue videos my first thought is always cynical

I’m not sure why but every time I think the same thing

When really I should just stop thinking so much and just enjoy the video.

 

[imontheloose]

On an unrelated note

Anytime I see those animal rescue videos my first thought is always cynical

I’m not sure why but every time I think the same thing

When really I should just stop thinking so much and just enjoy the video.

You’re probably neurodivergent &/or have a high IQ. Both these traits lead to things like described.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Perception is linked to the mind

Yea but you get what I mean, the two scenarios are fundamentally different

The example with the child doesn’t say anything about their moral character

But the example with person C does

but surely the question is if he should be penalised for it. That puts it into a much more, definitive wrong, someone would argue.

That’s a different topic but in my opinion no.

I think anyone would say for you to be responsible for something you have to know what you’re doing

but if something like this were to happen I do think they should be put in some sort of mental institution

Not to punish them but to help them.

it’s alien; it seems totally wrong and who cares that you see something else? It’s hard to want to understand someone who commits the least socially acceptable crime.

yes, this sort of ties into my previous point about how I know morality doesn’t exist objectively but I can’t live life as though that’s true.

In the same way we know that we can’t really hold a person like that responsible but still it invokes a sort of primal disgust in us.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

&/or have a high IQ.

For the sake of coping I’m going to just believe this is the thing causing it

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

You’re probably neurodivergent

Autism is an aristocratic trait

 

[nobodylovesme]

So someone can do a good thing but that action makes them less good of a person, while someone can do a bad thing but you can argue that makes them more good of a person.

Oh mb, I completely read this wrong, jfl. I read it backwards. Unlucky dyslexia pill. I'm tweaking.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

bad, it doesn't make him a worse person imo

Yes that’s my point

But if we are judging the thing he did, it should be judged on the framework he was working in.

Agreed

 

[Debetro]

Being NEET mogs but I will have to go back to school soon

Why

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Why

Because I don’t want to become a brokie

 

[Debetro]

Because I don’t want to become a brokie

Better to get in debt?

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Better to get in debt?

Atleast I’d have a high paying job

 

[Debetro]

Atleast I’d have a high paying job

Lmao. What makes you think you will find a job let alone earn well. What are you planning to study.

And what's your year. 2007?