Inconsequentialism

[Motus]

A system of morality may be based on whether the outcome of an action is favorable or unfavorable.

Suppose you were placed at the control panel of a nuclear bomb about to explode and kill millions, and in order to stop it, you had to flick the switch off. Does that make switch flicking a moral action, because the outcome was favorable in that instance?

Now suppose that even though you thought flicking the switch off would stop the bomb, it actually causes it to explode. Is your action still moral?

 

[Drifster]

A system of morality may be based on whether the outcome of an action is favorable or unfavorable.

Suppose you were placed at the control panel of a nuclear bomb about to explode and kill millions, and in order to stop it, you had to flick the switch off. Does that make switch flicking a moral action, because the outcome was favorable in that instance?

Just about everything we do in life has moral decisions and outcomes. A moral action first starts with a moral decision on what results from that action, or in this case inaction. So with that said, yes, flicking or not to flick, that is the moral question.

Now suppose that even though you thought flicking the switch off would stop the bomb, it actually causes it to explode. Is your action still moral?

Well, if you made the moral decision to stop the bomb, but inadvertently set it off, although your actions to some may have been immoral, you're intentions were. Besides, if the bombs goes off, who's going to be around (including yourself) to point fingers at the morals of both your decision and it's outcome??

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I believe that morality should favor intentions over (unintended) results. Certainly it would be of utmost benefit to everyone if each action created a positive result, but if these actions nevertheless came from ignoble intentions then the basic character of human beings are not improved and thus cannot be called moral.

 

[Azna]

A system of morality may be based on whether the outcome of an action is favorable or unfavorable.

Suppose you were placed at the control panel of a nuclear bomb about to explode and kill millions, and in order to stop it, you had to flick the switch off. Does that make switch flicking a moral action, because the outcome was favorable in that instance?

Now suppose that even though you thought flicking the switch off would stop the bomb, it actually causes it to explode. Is your action still moral?

mor al (môr2õl, mÄr2-) adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence.

Yes. Morality is not just about action but also about character.

A lot of threads on morality lately, aren't there?