What is moral value?

[Danhalen]

What is required for something to have moral value? I know questions of morality generally concern an "ought", but my question is really asking how to determine when "ought" or "ought not" actually has an outcome. this is to ask: if thought precedes an action of moral value, does that thought carry moral value (even if the thought is not acted upon)?

 

[Danhalen]

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[quatona]

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I think it´s an interesting question for those who operate with the idea of "moral value".
I personally don´t hold concepts that necessitate or suggest the use of this term, so I´m afraid I have to pass.

 

[Danhalen]

I think it´s an interesting question for those who operate with the idea of "moral value".
I personally don´t hold concepts that necessitate or suggest the use of this term, so I´m afraid I have to pass.

Thanks for keeping me company at least!

 

[elman]

What is required for something to have moral value? I know questions of morality generally concern an "ought", but my question is really asking how to determine when "ought" or "ought not" actually has an outcome. this is to ask: if thought precedes an action of moral value, does that thought carry moral value (even if the thought is not acted upon)?

Intent is very much a part of morality or of being loving toward each other. If the thought is not acted upon we have not acted morally. The thought alone is not loving action.

 

[jayem]

Of course, we can make moral judgements about thoughts, or ideas. We do it all the time on this message board, when we debate others' posts. Have you never heard some opinions that are not just incorrect, or falacious, but unethical? Like that homosexuals should be imprisoned; or that black citizens should be deported to Africa? (Just an example--I'm not saying anyone has made such a post here--but I've read such things elsewhere. )

But, in practice, morals are matters of degree. A bad thought alone doesn't have nearly the gravitas of an action. But an idea can still be morally wrong.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Maybe something that has long term benefit for humanity? Maybe something that reduces needless/undesired pain and promotes wellness? Maybe something that facilitates social relationships? Maybe something that safeguards freedom and equality among people?

There are two famous schools of thought. One says that moral is in the intent (thought) regardless of the consequence. Thus even an idiot who unwittingly causes the deaths of millions is moral insofar as he meant well. The other says that moral is in the consequence regardless of the intent. Thus even a malicious-minded individual is moral for killing millions of people as long as the result is beneficial. Which begs the question: beneficial to who?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

What is required for something to have moral value? I know questions of morality generally concern an "ought", but my question is really asking how to determine when "ought" or "ought not" actually has an outcome. this is to ask: if thought precedes an action of moral value, does that thought carry moral value (even if the thought is not acted upon)?

It appears to me that you have asks more than one question, so maybe I am just not following.

For something to have "moral value" means that it supports with favor a moral concern.

A moral is a rule/law/code/ethic that is not to ever be broken. If a proposed moral involves what is to be thought, then obviously any thought must conform to the moral in order to have moral value.

If a thought actually helps support an existing and accepted moral, then the thought has "moral value".

If a thought inspires an action that supports an accepted moral, then the thought would have "moral value" indirectly via the action.

I still don't know that I have addressed your intent.

 

[OdwinOddball]

What is moral value?

About tree-fiddy.