What Determines the Morality of an Action?

[rody084]

what makes an action "right"?

Hi,
I started a philosophy class today and this was the question that was discussed by the class... i think that it is a very good and interesting question... it is quite difficult to come up wiht an answer as to what makes an action "right"?

i want to see people's thoughts about this...

i think that a "right" action is one which is unselfish towards others...
this still leaves room for you to be able to do good things for yourself...but as long as they do not negatively influence others.

 

[Sikz]

That's a good definition until you get into more difficult problems...

For instance, if you can save an "innocent" person only by killing the man who intends to murder the "innocent", is it right to do so? In this case you're harming the murderer...

Or if you can save a group of "innocent" people by killing one "innocent" person, is it right? If you knew what Hitler was going to do before he did it, would it be morally correct to kill him?

As you said, a very difficult quesion...

 

[rody084]

i guess maybe then a new question has to be introduced here...

what makes a person good?

because i am thinking... maybe if i reform my previous definition to "a 'right' action is one which is unselfish towards good people"

then i think that would still make it a right action to kill one bad person to save a good one...

any other thoughts on this?

then again...also comes up the question of... what makes a person good?

 

[deda]

Newton would say...

As long as that action is simultaneous with some equal and oposite reaction it's right (or at least legal).

 

[rody084]

Originally posted by deda
As long as that action is simultaneous with some equal and oposite reaction it's right (or at least legal).

i don't quite follow what you said... could u explain it in simple terms for me please?

 

[deda]

Originally posted by rody084
i don't quite follow what you said... could u explain it in simple terms for me please?

it was more like a joke...

Newton's third law says:"For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction". i only said if the action you are talking about doesn't violate Newton III than it's right.

you might as well ignore my pervious post...

 

[rody084]

oh haha... i overlooked trying to think of it simply... i was all trying to interpret sum deeper meaning to what u said...lol

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by rody084
Hi,
I started a philosophy class today and this was the question that was discussed by the class... i think that it is a very good and interesting question... it is quite difficult to come up wiht an answer as to what makes an action "right"?

i want to see people's thoughts about this...

i think that a "right" action is one which is unselfish towards others...
this still leaves room for you to be able to do good things for yourself...but as long as they do not negatively influence others.

Right is what doesn't hurt and wrong is what does hurt. We have no other way of judging right and wrong. So the answer to your question is, it depends on the situation and the various factors you have to weigh in order to judge what will bring about the least amount of pain. Looking around at my fellow man, I see that the hardest part seems to be reasoning in the long term! It feels good now, but later... Consider the death penalty. If feels good now to take revenge on someone who did something heinous to a loved one, but you and everyone else will pay later as society is reduced to one based on revenge instead of justice (a society where the perp is kept in prison so they can't hurt someone else and especially a society oriented towards preventing evil from happening; recognizing problem children instead of processing them through the system over and over again until they do something really horrible...).

 

[himanshu121]

I don't know whether u find interest or not here it But still i provide u with the link for

GITA :http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/gita.htm

 

[olde drunk]

i come from the perspective that there is no right or wrong.

therefore, to me, all is subjective. if my action is being 'true to myself' than it can be considered as right. ironically, there are many times where you learn your greatest lessons by doing the 'wrong' thing.

i also accept the srgument that doing something 'good' for another is really selfish because it makes you feel good.

go figure,

 

[rody084]

i guess maybe there is no such thing as an unselfish action.

maybe also a "right" action is dependent on what you as an individual percieve as right...

so maybe that is the only way to define a right action... so maybe there is no universal definitino that everyone can agree to...

i was thinking for awhile that maybe if the person is "good" and their action is "right" to them then maybe it actually is a right action... but even if the person is "good" then YOU still might not agree that their action is right

 

[Dissident Dan]

The notions of right and wrong come from the notions of good and bad.

Good and bad can be defined in terms of pleasure and displeasure.

Causing displeasure or preventing pleasure is bad.

Causing pleasure or preventing displeasure is good.

Sometimes, an action can do both. That's when the complications come in.

 

[ParvinBriggs]

What makes an action right? Turn it around and ask yourself what makes an action wrong. Certainly, right is not pleasure nor wrong pain. Pleasure and pain are purely subjective experiences that arise from an individual's tastes and experiences. The funny thing is that all intelectual game playing aside, everyone has a gut instinct for right and wrong. Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

 

[Another God]

Thread moved to value theory, because it is about ethics!


And my conclusion as to what makes something 'right' is dependent on what the goal is. The right way to stop hunger, is to eat food. The right way to releive boredom is to do something interesting. To continue doing nothing even though you desire an end to your boredom would be the wrong thing to do.

Although this doesn't sound like ethics, the more indepth you think about it, ethics is nothing more than an extension of this into interpersonal dealings. The fact is, you like having people around you...I mean, you REALLY like having people around you. If you had no friends, no parents, no GF, and everyone outright ignored you, i'd almost guarantee that you would kill yourself. Isolation causes people to go crazy (without exception).

Now, with that in mind, what is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is to have people interact with you. How do you make that happen? You do things which they like to have done to them... doing those things is the 'right' thing to do... and so on.

I hope you get my drift.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by ParvinBriggs
Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

Gut instinct = That is wrong.

Analysis of it: From my perspective as someone behind the cut position: It is wrong, because it works against my getting to the front as fast as possible (It works against my goal).

From his position: It is right insofar as it gets him towards the front, but it is either wrong insofar as it goes towards making the people in the line like him. Whether he cares about that fact or not is another question. If he feels like he won't ever need their help, and he has enough friends/loved ones etc, he may decide that that element of wrongness is irrelevent.

Right and Wrong will always depend on perspective and context.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by ParvinBriggs
What makes an action right? Turn it around and ask yourself what makes an action wrong. Certainly, right is not pleasure nor wrong pain. Pleasure and pain are purely subjective experiences that arise from an individual's tastes and experiences. The funny thing is that all intelectual game playing aside, everyone has a gut instinct for right and wrong. Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

I completely disagree. We all know from experience that pain is bad and pleasure is good. It doesn't matter that different things cause different people pleasure or pain. There are always certain situational circumstances.

If you take th e subjective argument, then you can use it to refute any definition of right and wrong. If you believe that killing is wrong, then I can refute it by saying that different things kill different people. While one person may survive a 20-foot fall, another would die.

The while what causes pain or pleasure is dependent upon the person and other situational factors, the existence of pain and pleasure are completely objective.

 

[full-time-climb]

Good and bad could be defined as: Value statements as defined by your current beliefs.

Right and wrong will also change as your beliefs change.
John

 

[FZ+]

Yes, I would tend to agree with that too, as I am more of a prescriptive moralist. Right and wrong are what you say they are, and in many cases attempts to rationalise them are rather misguided. There is certainly no universal absolute morality, though there is a general consensus as to a moral code, and thanks to social evolution that is aided usually by simple practicality.

 

[Magna1]

Numbers

Isn't something right or wrong depending on what the majority says. And who is in power.
"Is cannibilism wrong in a Cannibilists eyes"

 

[Another God]

No. right and wrong do not depend on the majority...unlerss u ak that majority specifically

ie: as a few of us just agreed, its all dependent on who you ask and when, and what they believe. So if a majority of people believe that slavery is right, then they will tell u that it is. If you ask the minority though, they will tell you it is not right.

Who's correct? I certainly can't answer that difinitively.

 

[deda]

every action is right.

just make sure they don't get ya.

 

[Magna1]

Thats the problem then isn't it. The minority is never asked. We only care about the rich and famous. Some even say give true communism a try and you will have a larger majority housed, fed, employed, and posibly even happier.

I think that This question has to be asked with one eye closed, and answered with one ear shut.

 

[Pseudonym]

problems

I was browsing the forum, and I came across this thread. If the physical world is all there is, I see most people falling into one of two philosophies. Either each person determines right and wrong for himself, or morality is determined as a group or society.

Some of you are all for individual morality, but others see right and wrong as functions of society or evolution. It almost parallels the ancient Greeks. Epicureans lived for the moment and got what they could for themselves before they died - they did whatever they felt like. Stoics, OTOH, were very concerned with the preservation of the group.

I find problems in both views.

individual morality - If I cuss you out, it might make me feel good, but what if you don't agree? Don't push your beliefs on me. Or a step further - I kill you, obeying my religion or beliefs. Is it wrong?

group morality - Nazi Germany. The horrific extermination of the Jews was OK by German standards at that time, but most anyone now would agree that it was fundamentally wrong. Why?

Both theories break apart in practice. There must be an outside source for morality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The first great piece of western literature, the Iliad, has exactly that dichotomy for its theme. The Greeks were all for individuality, so Patroclus got killed trying to do the job of his friend Achilles, who was sulking. The Trojans were all for group solidarity, so the city was destroyed because of the failure of one man, Paris. Homer is perfectly clear, through his discussion of "the gods", personified causes, that this is what is happening. It gives an illustration to the phrase "The Tragic View of Life". There are no truly good causes, or choices. As Sartre said, humans are condemned to be free.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I was browsing the forum, and I came across this thread. If the physical world is all there is, I see most people falling into one of two philosophies. Either each person determines right and wrong for himself, or morality is determined as a group or society.

I do not believe in any spiritual existence, but I do not believe in individual or group morality. The ethicality of an action is determined by the circumstances, not what someone believes.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The ethicality of an action is determined by the circumstances, not what someone believes.

I agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it right or true. There has to be an objective source for morals for the world to make sense.

However, if there is nothing we can't see, where are you getting your ethics from? Why shouldn't I go and hurt other people just for fun? There is NO REASON NOT TO, because in the long run, NOTHING MATTERS.

Without an external source for morals, life is meaningless and chaotic.

 

[FZ+]

Pseudonym: (Hmm, I had an account by the username of pseudonym once, and I used it to enter a far-right republican chat room and suggest that maybe Iraq didn't have WMDs. What happened next was predictable.)

Both theories break apart in practice. There must be an outside source for morality.

But there is a flaw in this. You cannot say that there must be an outside source - rather, the examples you give indicate the opposite. People do kill each other, and depending on the side they are heros or villains. The Commandment: Thou shalt not kill is perhaps the most disobeyed of them all, even allegedly by God himself. And as you correctly said, morality did change. Pre-war, antisemitism was rife. Post-war, antisemitism is a taboo. Group morality has indeed been very strong - one of the greatest crimes is treason.

What your statement means is that there *should* be an external source, because to you a constant moral code is more palatable. The world just doesn't have to make sense. In a way, life is meaningless and chaotic.

But I think I would disagree on that. Life is meaningless and chaotic is you try to detach from the individuals who are living their lives, looking for an universal meaning. But to each individual, life does have meaning and value, and even with a belief in an afterlife we still grant meaning to our lives regardless of the end. That is why we don't all commit suicide. Deciding whether hurting people is fun is part of this personalised, prescriptive morality.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm, I had an account by the username of pseudonym once,

Well, at least we have something in common! :P

Originally posted by FZ+
You cannot say that there must be an outside source - rather, the examples you give indicate the opposite.

Maybe I didn't phrase things correctly. My examples do not prove the existence of God. I just wanted to take the two positions as I saw them to their logical conclusion, and look at the results. If you hold to either, you must also accept that mutually exclusive beliefs are true at the same time, even so far as to say that the Holocaust was right for some people and wrong for others.

Originally posted by FZ+
People do kill each other, and depending on the side they are heros or villains.

I would say that people kill each other, and depending on the side they are perceived as heroes or villains. I can believe as much as I want to that I'm on vacation in the Bahamas, but that doesn't change anything.

Originally posted by FZ+
Right and wrong are what you say they are, and in many cases attempts to rationalise them are rather misguided. There is certainly no universal absolute morality. . .

Where do you draw the line between 'religion' and other truth? What separates beliefs about factual history from beliefs about Jesus' resurrection, for example? Either peasants stormed the Bastille or they didn't. Either Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or he didn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. What I personally believe about that event doesn't matter. If he did rise from the dead, it makes a tremendous difference in the way we should live.

I don't think it's possible to separate 'religious' truth from other truth.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it right or true. There has to be an objective source for morals for the world to make sense.

However, if there is nothing we can't see, where are you getting your ethics from? Why shouldn't I go and hurt other people just for fun? There is NO REASON NOT TO, because in the long run, NOTHING MATTERS.

Without an external source for morals, life is meaningless and chaotic.

Life is meaningless, meaning that there is no purpose for life existing. However, that is separate from there being right and wrong.

Morality is based on the existence of pleasure and displeasure. These are outside things, that we all know exist through experiencing them. We know that pleasure is good and displeasure is bad.

 

[Pseudonym]

Dan, would it be OK for me to hurt someone, then, as long as it makes me feel good? If nothing I do has lasting consequences, is my own pleasure all that I am living for?

You seem to be arguing for a system of morals that is based on emotions. Pleasure and displeasure are not unchanging or even objective, as you say. They are the results of various competing emotions, and vary from person to person and change over time. A masochist might take a kind of pleasure in physically hurting himself.

If morals are not constant, then no action can be considered wrong. If no action is wrong, then the Spanish Inquisition was good, slavery was right, and child abuse is fine.