How would you best define whether an act is morally good?

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: How would you best define whether an act is morally good?

One answer only, please pick the best of these possible choices. I'm aware they're quite inadequate, but every person is sure to have their own personal definition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Philosophers have been arguing about this for millenia. (nt)

[kirby]

3. And we can settle it in this poll! n/t

[annabanana]

2. Do I get to define "reasonable"

. or will we subscribe to the standard legal usage?

[KittyWampus]

IMO, that's the crux of the thing. But doesn't the word "Moral" itself inherently imply

behavior or states of being that are desirable or good?

[Hello_Kitty]

4. I'm going to go with intent

Understanding that "the road to hell"...blah blah blah. When you undertake an action you have no way of knowing what the future net benefits will be. You only have current information and whatever your values are to work from. The drowning child I save today may grow up to be a serial killer but I'd still say saving him is the moral thing to do right now.

[MADem]

5. Benevolent intent alone isn't enough. There's got to be a modicum of intelligence involved.

The grossly intellectually deficient lad who takes a sledgehammer to his mother because he doesn't want her to suffer terrible migraines has the good intentions, but he's on the 'road to hell' that's paved with his intentions, because he lacked the intelligence to find a good solution instead of a moronic one.

[KittyWampus]

6. aren't 4 and 5 synonymous?

[Occam Bandage]

9. Not necessarily.

#4 is asking whether it would be morally just for everyone to act as you have done as a rule in similar situations.
#5 is asking whether it conforms to prescribed guidelines that have been handed down--for instance, in the Bible, or in the Analects, or in the United States Code.

[KittyWampus]

7. Had to go with Intent taking as a given that there are various Moral Codes prescribing what is good

Codes of behavior or at least Ideals are implicit in the very word "Moral".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Primum non nocere - "First, do no harm." Is a good starting point.

Followed by, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[moggie]

10. I'm surprised that 1 and 3 are doing so well

1: consider five sick patients who will die without organ transplants (one heart, two lungs, two kidneys), and one healthy person. Would it be morally acceptable to kill the healthy person (against their will) in order to harvest their organs and save the five patients? The net benefit is greater than the net harm.

3: Consider a man who believes that sinners go to hell, those without sin go to heaven, and that babies are without sin. So he sets about killing babies, to ensure that they get into heaven. His intent is benevolent.

[KittyWampus]

13. but that's the point. Within the framework of his chosen Moral system he IS benevolent.

But ultimately all dualistic moral systems that define what is "good" and what is "evil" are artificial human constructs and thus flawed.

[moggie]

14. But he's presumably not voting in this poll

The poll question is "how would you best define whether an act is morally good?" (emphasis added). Those voting for option 1 or 3 have to either regard the action in my corresponding thought experiment as morally good, or explain how it doesn't fit the model.

[Occam Bandage]

11. kick for votes.

[TWiley]

12. Republican morality: It is good if it is good for me.

the antithesis would define true morality.

anything not-republican

[Occam Bandage]

16. That would be #6.

As for the antithesis? "Anything that harms oneself is moral," which I don't think is very good either.

[TahitiNut]

15. #4 ... Kant's Categorical Imperative

:shrug: But I'm guided by a deontological ethical system.


The 'utilitarian' perspective ("The ends justify the means") is morally bankrupt and is used to rationalize torture.

[lostnfound]

17. If you are deontological, do you pick benevolent intent?

I am tempted to choose that one as well. But then OTOH 'the road to hell was paved with good intentions'. It seems to me that there is a certain element of humility that can be lacking from the benevolent intent idea. Assuming that one always knows the right thing to do can be risky...i.e., if you are going to break a principle in order to be kind to someone, for example, one could be unintentionally creating harm. Placing oneself generally in subservience to a set of principles (principles which should themselves seem to have benevolent intent) is an act of humility that might be advantageous to all for all to follow..

In practice, benevolent intent is usually what I would judge someone else's actions by.. For my own actions, I would like to think that there is a set of principles.

[TahitiNut]

21. The duty is to act and have an objective BOTH that are 'good.'

It is to act in a manner that would serve as a model for everyone's actions. It's not just the "do unto others..." but, more, that it serves as a model for behavior even if self isn't involved.

[MattBaggins]

19. Do you think utilitarian approach would encompass

stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children?

I will admit I would do that if I absolutely had too. I mean absolutely had too.

[TahitiNut]

20. As a last resort, yes. My duty to my children would be "profound" and require ...

... that I somehow meet their needs. The theft would not be ethical ... but a greater ethical failing would be to fail in m duty to my children. Ethical conundrums (moral dilemmas ... Sophie's choices) are rarely perfect in their solution.

[MattBaggins]

22. Ethics and morals are very confusing and give me headaches

That's why I've decided not to have any.

Wait a minute, I just figured out the psyche of a freeper.

[MattBaggins]

18. I went with 4

but think a combo of 4+3+1 is where I stand.

[LanternWaste]

23. I voted #2, but I'm not sure it's in accordance with...

I voted #2, but I'm not sure it's in accordance with the individual who most closely defined what I believe is both moral and good....



“Ethics is nothing other than Reverence for Life."

"Reverence for Life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, assisting and enhancing life, and to destroy, to harm or to hinder life is evil.”
— Albert Schweitzer, 'Civilization and Ethics'

[cliffordu]

24. YOu can have the best intentions and still wind up with Bush in the white house.