4 ms·

Ridiculous. Morality is about outcome, not intention, and love is decided retroactively after we experience the outcome of our interactions. I don’t care if you

Ridiculous. Morality is about outcome, not intention, and love is decided retroactively after we experience the outcome of our interactions. I don’t care if you make a decision because you love me. If it’s a bad decision that screws up my future, then it’s still immoral.

yapyap 1y ago
well everyone, we can just stop discussing what has been discussed for thousands on thousands of years since this guy figured out what morality is. your comment sounds insane. you live in the now not in the future.
- kouru225 1y ago
  “You live in the now not in the future” The only reason I can imagine you’d add this to the convo is if you feel like having a cohesive philosophy of ethics necessarily enables you to live a moral life with no immorality. IMO even with perfect philosophical understanding, you can still end up acting immorally. It’s always a possibility and no philosophy will ever save you from that.
  - tetromino_ 1y ago
    No, PP added that to the convo to explain why an ethical framework that requires waiting for an act's outcome to fully play out is not a useful framework.
    - kouru225 1y ago
      “Useful” as in: a framework that gets the result you want. And yet the framework they’re describing has a serious and obvious flaw, and so it won’t reliably get the result they want. If we believe in intention, then how can we ever understand all the examples of people that had good intentions but still ended up acting immorally? We can argue they’re lying or that their intentions weren’t pure enough for our taste, but there absolutely will be cases that don’t fall into those two categories. Also, even with all our philosophy, psychology, and experience, we have no idea what their internal world was like. We might as well just be reading tea leaves. The whole function of treating ethics this way is to provide reassurance to everyone that they don’t need to worry about screwing everything up… but it’s just reassurance. You need reassurance because your anxiety is valid. There’s no philosophical framework or purity of heart that can save you from making a bad decision that does more bad than good. You just have to do the best you can.
daymanstep 1y ago
It's a good thing the law doesn't share your view. Look up mens rea.
- kouru225 1y ago
  Yea I mean I don’t really respect the legal world very much. You can see the failure of this with popularized cases like Brock Turner, who was guilty but given only 6 months because the Judge essentially decided his mind wasn’t that guilty and instead he “had a great future ahead of him”. “Guilty mind” is basically just saying “I don’t find the defendant to be relatable” and so it’s no wonder that people of different races and ethnic groups are significantly more likely to go to jail and get higher sentences for the exact same crimes. Edit: also, let’s be very clear: the point of law is to decide whether or not someone should be punished; not to decide whether or not someone is immoral. Those are two separate things.
- pixl97 1y ago
  In a converse statement, look up actus reus, and the laws it applies to.
n4r9 1y ago
I agree to some extent. If you're blinded by your own ignorance or selfishness then intentions seem less important. For example, parents that force their child to study medicine because of their own fixed ideas, depriving them of a happier and more fulfilling life as an artist. But most people would argue that intention often plays a role. If I buy you a device that - unbeknownst to anyone - has a defect which makes it explode and you lose a limb, I would be incredibly sorry that it happened but the gift wouldn't be an immoral act.

yapyap 1y ago

well everyone, we can just stop discussing what has been discussed for thousands on thousands of years since this guy figured out what morality is. your comment sounds insane. you live in the now not in the future.

kouru225 1y ago
“You live in the now not in the future” The only reason I can imagine you’d add this to the convo is if you feel like having a cohesive philosophy of ethics necessarily enables you to live a moral life with no immorality. IMO even with perfect philosophical understanding, you can still end up acting immorally. It’s always a possibility and no philosophy will ever save you from that.
- tetromino_ 1y ago
  No, PP added that to the convo to explain why an ethical framework that requires waiting for an act's outcome to fully play out is not a useful framework.
  - kouru225 1y ago
    “Useful” as in: a framework that gets the result you want. And yet the framework they’re describing has a serious and obvious flaw, and so it won’t reliably get the result they want. If we believe in intention, then how can we ever understand all the examples of people that had good intentions but still ended up acting immorally? We can argue they’re lying or that their intentions weren’t pure enough for our taste, but there absolutely will be cases that don’t fall into those two categories. Also, even with all our philosophy, psychology, and experience, we have no idea what their internal world was like. We might as well just be reading tea leaves. The whole function of treating ethics this way is to provide reassurance to everyone that they don’t need to worry about screwing everything up… but it’s just reassurance. You need reassurance because your anxiety is valid. There’s no philosophical framework or purity of heart that can save you from making a bad decision that does more bad than good. You just have to do the best you can.

daymanstep 1y ago

It's a good thing the law doesn't share your view. Look up mens rea.

kouru225 1y ago
Yea I mean I don’t really respect the legal world very much. You can see the failure of this with popularized cases like Brock Turner, who was guilty but given only 6 months because the Judge essentially decided his mind wasn’t that guilty and instead he “had a great future ahead of him”. “Guilty mind” is basically just saying “I don’t find the defendant to be relatable” and so it’s no wonder that people of different races and ethnic groups are significantly more likely to go to jail and get higher sentences for the exact same crimes. Edit: also, let’s be very clear: the point of law is to decide whether or not someone should be punished; not to decide whether or not someone is immoral. Those are two separate things.
pixl97 1y ago
In a converse statement, look up actus reus, and the laws it applies to.

n4r9 1y ago

I agree to some extent. If you're blinded by your own ignorance or selfishness then intentions seem less important. For example, parents that force their child to study medicine because of their own fixed ideas, depriving them of a happier and more fulfilling life as an artist. But most people would argue that intention often plays a role. If I buy you a device that - unbeknownst to anyone - has a defect which makes it explode and you lose a limb, I would be incredibly sorry that it happened but the gift wouldn't be an immoral act.