Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And what is moral is an act that is likely to produce good outcomes, and what is immoral is an act that is likely to produce bad outcomes. What am I missing?
It ain't my definition; it's the best I can suss out from what you've said thus far. And it doesn't equate morals with outcomes.I disagree with your definition. You shouldn't equate morals with outcomes.
I know what you were saying, and I showed you it works in the opposite way." randomly push women" right.
If, maybe, you were less determined to be right you could
take a sec to recognize what someone else is saying?
Your response is 180 degrees off compass.
It ain't my definition; it's the best I can suss out from what you've said thus far. And it doesn't equate morals with outcomes.
You've said it's better to do moral things when the outcome is better. You've said morals are influenced by desired outcomes. So it's good to do things that likely lead to good outcomes.
I know what you were saying, and I showed you it works in the opposite way.
You wanted to say that bad things might result from what we think is good.
I showed that good things might result from what we think is bad.
You specifically said that they're not dependent on "actual" outcomes.No, I said they can be influenced by desired outcomes. They can also be influenced by other things instead. I specifically said that they're not dependent on desired outcomes.
So in your analogy, we know WWII happened, but we're in the past before Hitler did any of it, and your point is that we can't know the future...Nope. Guess i needed to play captain obvious.
People bring up kill hitler as a positive intervention.
Of course theres no freaking way to see the future.
I don't see what's so difficult about acknowledging that it's better to do things that cause things to be better.
Better for whom? How can you be sure that things will get better for whoever? What do your morals say when it's better for one person but worse for another? There is no general universal "better" that applies in all situations.
Whatever, my personal opinion is that morality is basically consequentialist, in that one wants morality to provide a route to the best of all possible outcomes.
I think you have described a naive form of hedonism (which is great I'm a hedonist)
This is what moral philosophers mean by consequentialism:
Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act). (SEP)
Thanks for that clarification. I still think morality is about the achievement of the best of all possible outcomes, however.
Best wishes, Strivax.
Self indulgence is the root of all evil
...So for example, when a deontologist claims that some act must be done in light of a duty, he is contradicting consequentialism...
But presumably if you pressed him, your deontologist would eventually have to admit that fulfilled duties contribute to, and are justified by, a good outcome.
And there was I thinking the root of all evil was the love of money! But I do not think morality requires of us that we completely disregard our well being, only that we consider the well being of others to be of equal weight to our own.
Best wishes, Strivax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?