A very old and basic ethical question...

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Seriously, man, that's funny. The laws are only as moral as the law makers. Look at the drug war, or the way many of our tax laws are set up to benefit the rich.

Good point. I guess, like mariecstasy is saying, both are important. There must be some way out of this question. I believe any question that leaves so many people stumped for so long must be a poor question that could be asked another way. But for now, I think that intentions, being the only thing we have control over, is very important. I suppose in judging someone, consequences have to be considered, because that's the effect of the intention.

I think that's it. the split between cause and effect is a false one, there is no split, because the cause is the effect of some other cause. It's not a bunch of chain links, it's more like a road of continuous happenings. We have to look at the road this person is walking down, not just isolated events, which mean nothing out of context.

 

You're missing my point. I asked, "What higher standard is there for a code of conduct other than the law?" Laws almost always reflect the social norms of any given society. So, what higher standard exists for moral law other than the general consensus of the members of a society? God is a possible answer, but I don't believe in God. I'm hard pressed to think of another good answer, since morality has absolutely nothing to do with logic in the least. If you or anyone else disagrees, then demonstrate how the principles of ethics can be deduced from logic because so far no one who disagrees with me has come up with anything close to an argument.

 

Personally, I think Pirsig has taken one too many hits of acid. The idea that values are empirically verifiable but haven't been seen yet seems self-contradictory to me. But I'll pick it up if I get the chance. Sounds interesting.

 

Many people do very illadvised things due to what they "think" will happen, and don't think out their consequences. People do a lot of stupid, dangerous and damaging things, and later blame the results on "that isn't what I thought would happen."

Ever hear the phrase "The road to hell is paved with Good Intentions?"

I really don't know the answer to this question.

 

common sense

there is the law of society and then there is natural law. nature bats last.

 

There are no laws of nature regarding ethics. If there were, then they would be unbreakable like math or the law of gravity. But clearly anyone can violate any rule at any time. So no, moral laws are nothing like laws of nature. By the way, you should start making argument instead of just making assertions soon, or this is going to take forever. I'll try to speed the process along for now. If I asked you for an example of a natural law of ethics, you'd probably give an example like "Thou shall not kill". Then I'd ask you how you can equate killing to evil a priori, meaning that I'm asking you how you equate killing to evil in a strictly logical way i.e. in the same way a deduction works logically, or mathematics for that matter. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

 

societal consensus is one standard for morality, so is individual conscience. morality is subjective and not an object of reason, or a matter of fact that can be demonstrated. It is a perception of the mind or a feeling that is experienced. you asked for another standard of "good"and I suggested nature. we take pleasure in nature as do we approve of a virtuous moral action

 

But the question is, "What is the highest standard of morality?" I'm not asking for a list of all possible moral standards. I want to know what the greatest standard is. Since many people are a larger quantity of people than one person (obviously), that literally makes the standard greater, by definition, a priori.

I agree, but that doesn't sound like what you were saying a minute ago. "Experienced" is probably not the word I'd use though, since you don't experience right-ness or wrong-ness with any of the five senses.

I don't understand. Sure, we can take pleasure in nature, but what does that have to do with morality? How can taking pleasure in nature be a complete moral code? It might answer a moral question like, "Is littering wrong?" but what does it have to do with question about murder or theft? And if, as you say, morality is purely subjective, then why bother to give such a great moral status to nature, which is not a perceiving subject, or even human?

 

each is of itself so how can one really choose?

 

i used to tell my daughter, " I know you didnt meen too, but the point is you didnt meen not too"

 

Well, I agree with mati, you aren't going to find it with logic. Try meditation.

 

Of course you're not going to find it with logic. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. You won't find it with meditation either. It's a simple matter of recognising that morality is something rather trivial and based on gut feelings. If you want to know what the highest standard for morality is, then look for general consensus among the members of a particular society. There can be no higher standard. It's not a question of logic; it's a question of sociology.

 

common sense: you said "there would be no way to enforce law if good were determined by our intention" because only we know our intentions. That is, unless we try to tell "the truth", then those who were listening would have a better opportunity to understand.The possibility of a defendant lying is generally presumed by courts. But most people will feel confident that when acquainted with all the particulars of a case, the circumstances and motives, they will be able to infer the actions of the accused. Without intent, our actions would be arbitrary and random. Whether they lie or not is important but does not essentially change the nature of the intention, which can be effectively traced through other means than the testimony of the defendant.

Now as to a standard for the "greater good", I don't think it necessarily needs to be applied to what is consensed by the numerically larger quantity of people. Of course it can be if that is how you would like to define it but it could also be interpreted qualitatively in respect to more than numerics and be felt by relatively few or even one individual.

Nature, as a matter of fact, is neither moral or amoral, it simply is. Our sense of morals is the disapproval or approval we feel when contemplating action. A conscious person may be outraged by the clear-cutting of the ancient redwoods, and this regardless of what society thinks. Moral standards vary and who is to say what, in the final analysis, will be the "higher good". Frame of reference is where its' at. There are many ways to look at it and it may turn out in the long run that how we interact with nature will be as important as how we interact with each other.

 

It's the thought that counts
I'm so sick of that one....if ya sit there thinking of some good intention but never get off your ass to do anything then what good is the thought?
Should I get mad cuz ya did nothing all day- didn't help out or just so "oh well, least ya thought about it"

 

Would you rather have someone act towards you with good intentions or with bad???

 

Intent in the way most seem to be regarding it here does have standing under the law in most states. Say if one steals a car inorder to rush a seriously injured person in danger of dying to medical help and is overtaken speeding in the process, in most states there are provisions in the law to find this a justified action.....

 

Oops I voted for wrong one. I think that what really happens is more important than what you mean to happen because everybody only does what they think is best but what they think is best could be wrong or currupted especially in todays society so I think that what really happens is more important.

 

I believe that as well as our intentions may be, the consequenses of those actions is much more important.