Which of these is the worst evil or wrong?

[quatona]

I am sorry if I didn't make any sense, I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts to word.

No problem, we have the opportunity to ask and clarify here, after all.

What I am saying is, the value(good v. bad, right v. wrong) of an action should be determined prior to any consideration of future consequences, whether beneficial or detrimental.

A consequence is always a future event. Are you saying that the value of an action cannot be told its consequences at all, or are you drawing a certain timeline beyond which the consequences needn´t be considered? If the latter, what would that time be? Milliseconds, seconds, minutes, days?

example:
A)Man A exists

Ok.

B)Killing Man A is either a right or wrong, good or bad, etc. action.

Ok, if we really say that killing a man is always and with no exception whatsoever wrong, no matter the circumstances, no matter the consequences, no matter the intentions, then I understand your point: You consider killing a man an inherently wrong action.
If not, you are already accepting that assumed long term effects (like preventing the death of other persons else by killing this person, or protecting one´s own life) are part of the equation.

C) a/ Killing Man A would result in x amount of other people living who otherwise would die.
C) b/ Killing Man A would result in the further deaths of x amount of people who otherwise would live.

D) The value of the act of killing Man A remains constant, it does not change relative to resultant consequences.

As said above, that makes total sense, as long as we say that killing a man is always wrong.
I do not understand, though, why you talk about man A. If this emphasis is of significance: How do we determine that killing man A (as opposed to killing other men)is wrong? I think that would necessitate consideration of long term effects.

Logic and the sequence of events.

example: Earlier in this thread it was said that without the Holocaust, our civil rights may not be at the state they are... going with that statement(regardless of the accuracy of said statement):

Action: Holocaust(Genocide of the Jews, among others)

Direct effect: The cessation of life for millions of Jews, as well as others.

Secondary effect: Tragedy leads people to treat others right, leading to civil rights reform.

A direct result of the holocaust is the death of millions, a secondary result, derived from the direct, would be an increase in civil rights.

I did understand which you counted as direct and which as secondary effects in this particular case. What I meant to ask was how we - generally - tell a direct from a secondary effect. The timeline, if you will, and the reasons for the timeline being exactly where you draw it. I would need such a clear cut definition in order to prevent myself from making arbitrary or interest driven distinctions in concrete cases.

 

[Mister Emu]

A consequence is always a future event.

Tired, very tired

Are you saying that the value of an action cannot be told its consequences at all, or are you drawing a certain timeline beyond which the consequences needn´t be considered?

I am saying consequences have no weight in determining whether an act is 'good' or 'bad'.

As said above, that makes total sense, as long as we say that killing a man is always wrong.
I do not understand, though, why you talk about man A. If this emphasis is of significance: How do we determine that killing man A (as opposed to killing other men)is wrong? I think that would necessitate consideration of long term effects.

That is up to the individual, it may involve many things, that do not involve long term effects. I am not trying to create a moral code for others(though I would be happy to oblige, if you are interested, with my own, perhaps in a more appropriate thread?).

What I meant to ask was how we tell a direct from a secondary effect. The timeline, if you will, and the reasons for the timeline being exactly where you draw it.

To the question, I attempted to answer it. I was not just trying to point out what I reached but how I reached it. Also there is not so much a timeline as a sequence beginning at the action.

First you have an action, let's say, pulling the trigger of a gun, ignoring other direct results of that action, one is the death of, the infamous, Man A.

Now there is a direct cause-effect relationtionship between the action, trigger pulling, and the effect, the death. Direct effect/result/etc.

Let's say there is a life insurance, which the wife now gets. There is a direct cause-effect relationship between the death, direct effect, and the wife getting insurance money, secondary effect.

There is now a sequence beginning with the action, going through an effect, and leading to another indirect(secondary) effect.

The direct effect derives it cause in the action, a secondary effect derives it cause in a direct effect. A Tertiary would derive its cause in a secondary effect.

Edit: Thanks for the discussion Quatona, have to sleep now, I am probably going to wake up later, read this, and ponder my late-night insanity

 

[quatona]

Tired, very tired

It´s morning here.

I am saying consequences have no weight in determining whether an act is 'good' or 'bad'.

Ok.

That is up to the individual, it may involve many things, that do not involve long term effects. I am not trying to create a moral code for others(though I would be happy to oblige, if you are interested, with my own, perhaps in a more appropriate thread?).

One example would be enough to give me an idea, and of course for me to try to show how it involves long term considerations.
(I feel that we are still in the range of what Trickster had in mind when creating this thread - of course, if she find´s it off topic, I will respect it and agree to carry this discussion somewhere else).

To the question, I attempted to answer it. I was not just trying to point out what I reached but how I reached it. Also there is not so much a timeline as a sequence beginning at the action.

First you have an action, let's say, pulling the trigger of a gun, ignoring other direct results of that action, one is the death of, the infamous, Man A.

Now there is a direct cause-effect relationtionship between the action, trigger pulling, and the effect, the death. Direct effect/result/etc.

Although you may find it nit-picking, I find it important to acknowledge that there are several intermediate cause-effects relations between pulling a trigger and the killing of a man (the amount depending on how close we are willing to look at it), as well as many other contributing factors.
Thus, considering the death the first, direct effect is arbitrary.

Let's say there is a life insurance, which the wife now gets. There is a direct cause-effect relationship between the death, direct effect, and the wife getting insurance money, secondary effect.

It certainly is later in the chain of effects, but that doesn´t help demonstrating why we would call the death of the man the first, direct effect.
If the man was merely interested in the mechanism of the gun (let´s, for the purpose of clarity, even assume he doesn´t know anything about guns and what they do), then a shot went off and killed the man, he would be inclined to think of the shot itself as the first effect of his investigation of the mechanism.
Whilst if the man´s intention was to get the woman the insurance payment, he would be inclined to look at that as the first effect.
Bottom line: What we regard the first effect, depends on how we look at things, and this again, usually, depends on our interests.

Edit: Thanks for the discussion Quatona, have to sleep now, I am probably going to wake up later, read this, and ponder my late-night insanity

Good night. Maybe see you tomorrow!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am saying consequences have no weight in determining whether an act is 'good' or 'bad'.

so, you plunge the knife deep into the victims throat, as a consequence of which he dies, slowly, agonisingly, drowning in his own blood.

The CONSEQUENCES of your act are pain, death, the grieving of the victims family and friends, and the cost to the state for your investigation, arrest, trial, and incarceration, all money that could have gone towards saving children with cancer.

Yep, absolutely no moral implication from your actions.

 

[TricksterWolf]

What I am saying is, the value(good v. bad, right v. wrong) of an action should be determined prior to any consideration of future consequences, whether beneficial or detrimental.

And what I'm saying is that the value of an action should not be judged at all--before or after.

Obviously, both nature of an action and likely effects of an action come into play when making a moral or ethical decision. I agreed that the ends did not justify the means at the beginning of the post you responded to, but I added that it is also a mistake to think that we can know whether an action will lead to "good" or "bad" fortune in advance. This shouldn't be why we act.

Trickster

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

Are toddlers really innocent?

Trickster

Are they?...Are they really?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Are they?...Are they really?

Freud would shout an emphatic, "NO!"

But he died of oral cancer 67 years ago, so he's not very vocal these days.

Trickster

 

[justanobserver]

for lack of an "other" option, I picked "presuming you know something (hint: this is mine!)".

just my opinion only but in the christian sense, the worse evil/wrong would be blasphemy as this is the only sin that is unforgivable according to the bible.

in the non christian/religious sense, genocide/raping toddlers is almost too close to call. But I would have to go with raping toddlers.