.. And vise-versa; is doing a bad thing for a good reason still bad? Are good and bad in correlation with the motives of the person involved, or are good and bad only in relation to the outcome? Can something still be good, when it is the result of a bad action? I mean this in the vaguest possible way, so feel free to use whatever you like to support your opinion, as long as it demonstrates some level of intellectuality, otherwise Sarge will obliterate it. Okay, i'm not asking for any definitive answers here because i know they are essentially subjective, so please don't try to go for the generic answers. It's completely counter-intuitive. My point that it is subjective means you have to find it's derivatives, what trends or fundamental aspects lead to the subjective answers we end with? That is delving into the real core of the discussion without simply answering with 'it's relative'.
I don't think the motives matter at all. What counts is what happens. It really depends on what perspective you look at it from, and there are lots of different perspectives on good and bad. I'd say ultimately doing a good thing for a bad reason is still doing a good thing. I suppose we need an example for argument's sake. If a large corporation donates to charity for a better public image and tax reductions, it's doing a good thing, but for bad reasons. Regardless of that, the charity has now received the money and will do good things with it. Ultimately a good thing.
Doing a nice thing for a girl only to sleep with them is bad. I think it depends more on the situation, the tax reduction thing is a great example.
In my opinion, there is no right or wrong. There is only what has been done, or what you will do. You will not be able to reverse what you do so how could you say that it is right, in comparison to something that you have not done.
Motives are irrelavant, because true consciousness can never be observed and therefore cannot be proved/disproved.
I.E. Hitler. And so many more dictators and leaders. It's a very subjective question. It delves into morality, which is constantly changing in society. There are countless examples on either end of each question, so bringing up examples will quickly become redundant. Overall, it depends on the era of time and that society's position on morality. 20 years ago, abortion was a terrible thing to even mention. In 20 years, it might be perfectly acceptable.
Okay, i'm not asking for any definitive answers here because i know they are essentially subjective, so please don't try to go for the generic answers. It's completely counter-intuitive. My point that it is subjective means you have to find it's derivatives, what trends or fundamental aspects lead to the subjective answers we end with? That is delving into the real core of the discussion without simply answering with 'it's relative'. Edited the op.
Life is devoid of morality: anything that happens, whether intentional or unintentional, is completely without "moral consequence". Would you like me to explain further?
Well if you beleive in determinism, it's easy to see how determinism upsets the idea that we are in control of the decisions we make. Without free will, morality crumbles, because it depends on the idea that we are in control of our decisions. Of course, that's morality in the "grand scheme of things", not the wishy-washy 'man made' idea of morality.
I don't think there is a way to answer this that fully satisfies what you are looking for. Any answer we give will be generic with a specific example if applicable. Morality depends on the society. Eating dogs is viewed as immoral in most cultures but some view it as immoral to let good food rot when it could provide sustenance to many. Therefore implied intent and physical actions fit into the greater definition of morality. A convicted criminal is hiding in your house. He is convicted for stealing medicine that would have cured his daughter. Turning him in would be the right thing to do in society if they are a convicted criminal and you would probably get a reward for doing so. It is the wrong thing to do morally.
It goes without saying that morality is a human creation, based on the dated assumption that human affairs have a cosmic importance. Of course, those who believe in god and other supernatural entities probably disagree.
Faith =/= morality. I do not follow any organized religion but I believe what I do matters. If I give a homeless man a hundred dollars (and let's break the reality that the homeless person probably was homeless due to drug use or being schizo) and that homeless man goes on to create a multi-billion dollar company and donates most of his wealth to helping homeless and destitute people than surely "morality" existed. I did not do it because I was trying to impress some "higher" power, I did it because it was morally good.
I'm going to go poison a few thousand people now so they can go have a better life in heaven. Seriously quit being all moralistic, people. Kindergarten is the only place you get a grade for effort.
It's undeniable that morality can be manipulated by us, but can it really have been created by us? Can you not understand that it may be fundamentally a genetic mechanism? And don't say no just because other animals don't have it, because i could probably find plenty cases of morality within other species, and many more cases of other genetic mechanisms humans have that other animals do not.
I believe morality is made up of three fundamental layers of perspective, one is the individuals perspective, the second is the cultures/group perspective, the third is the genetic perspective. It is considered globally immoral to let a child die from neglect, therefore this would fall as a genetic trait of morality. No one would accept a mother or father who would purposely do such a thing, at any time. Believing in Individualism would fit into the second layer. Western cultures highly approve individualism, Eastern/Asian cultures believe in more Socialism. Viewing something like masturbating wrong, would be personal and fit in the third. People regardless of culture could view masturbating as disturbing, and vice-versa. That is how I believe Morality can be defined.
Morality is the human pack instinct. Other animals have pack instincts to. I think what Transhuman was trying to say is that in determinism, there is a set straight path of the future, somewhat like fate. As time goes on the cause and effect events of everything can not be changed due to the fact that it's all cause and effect, there is no free will involved; as your consciousness and the way you think stems from the environment you were raised in, your genetics, and the experiences you've had all cumulate to whatever decisions you end up making. Basically saying that if you had enough data AKA know everything you could predict the future, not that that's important to this debate. Because of that morality as it is being viewed in this thread does exist the way it is being presented, as a choice, when in fact it is not due to determinism, but that's a whole nother' debate.