If you had to choose either, which would you choose?

If you believe that motive is more important, you believe in Deontology:
Deontology itself is divided into Divine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, Kantian ethics, Non-aggression principle, Pluralistic Deontology (W.D. Ross) and Contemporary ethics.

If you believe that consequence is more important, you believe in Consequentialism:
Consequentialism is divided into Rule Consequentialism and Act Consequentialism. Act Consequentialism is itself divided into Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism.

My personal believe is in the Divine Command Theory under Deontology, but I'm still open for discussion. What do you believe in?

Edit: Grammar and initial question

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Aug 4 2009, 11:11 PM

I would favour motive. However, the condition of effort is also important. For even if we have the motive, but put little effort to doing it, it is nearly meaningless.

I have pretty strong reservations against Divine Command Theory as it is easily MANIPULATED and used as a very very strong motivation for wrong reasons.

Hmm... let's see...

Without motive, I'd wouldn't really want to do anything.
But then when I wanted to do something, it's probably because I want to achieve something i.e. to reach a consequence. So in order to reach a certain consequence, I have motive.

I suppose that makes me in the consequence group, since I can't think of telling the truth just for purely telling the truth's sake without considering the possible consequences.

interesting. i never thought of deontology as motive and utilitarianism as consequences before.
from what i know, deontology is duty like you quoted and utilitarianism is define as "greater good for grater amount of people".

i would say consequences is more important than motive although hedonic calculus is kind of flawed (there's no real way to measure "good" or happiness".)

i say consequences is more important because of something like "robin hood"? although the act itself is wrong, the consequences is good, it is justifiable. (cant think of any good example at the moment.)

Consequentialism.

Any person can have any motives, but the question of RIGHT and WRONG still lies in the outcome of such motives, i.e. consequences.

The act does not equal motive.

Like your robin hood analogy. He has a good MOTIVE, which is to help the poor. But bad ACTION, which is stealing. Though consequences are debatable

---

Added on August 4, 2009, 9:55 pmWhat bout this scenario.

A person has the motive to help a person. He has right MOTIVES. He puts EFFORT to help the person. He has right effort. But due to unforeseen turn of events, the outcome/consequences end up for the worse. What bout this?

This post has been edited by befitozi: Aug 4 2009, 09:55 PM

Of course in many things we do, there are motives (e.g. to do charity, to seek revenge, to seek justice etc.) and a consequence (e.g. it backfires on us, we get praised, misunderstanding arises from what we do etc. ). But the question here is not whether our actions a driven solely by motives or consequences. It's about which would you consider as a more important aspect if you had to choose either.

An example of telling the truth without considering the consequences would be Divine Command Theory whereby a person tells the truth because he believe in the command of a higher being (i.e. God) that commands him to tell the truth.

Another example would be through the belief in Kantian ethics whereby a person is compelled to tells the truth because he believes that it is his duty to do so. He prioritizes it as more important than the consequence and therefore he would still tell the truth even though he might have to suffer humiliation or punishment as a result of telling the truth.

---

Added on August 4, 2009, 11:02 pmAccording to deontology, acts can be inherently good or evil. Therefore the inherent part of this act would be it's motive (either good or evil). Utilitarianism would concern itself with consequences because it seeks the outcome of the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Since it is objective is in the outcome, therefore it is a form of consequentialism.

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Aug 4 2009, 11:02 PM

Motive i believe

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

youre right, act does not equal motive.

i took motive as deontological ethics itself.

somehow i feel motive is more important than consequences now, oh how fickle minded can i be.

In this case, yes, the act is not exactly equal with the motive. But if you were to ask Robin Hood whether his actions are supportive of his motive, do you think he's going to say that his actions and motives are contradicting each other?

In fact, how many people with sound minds act in a way that contradicts their motives?

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Aug 6 2009, 11:12 PM

http://www.plotinus.com/zen2_copy.htm

Thinkingfox,

I believe in Zen. Hence, I believe in non-duality. Your debate / argument is a result of DUALITY. Two opposing views that appear to oppose each others. Once you caught in this. There is NO WAY OUT.

Dreamer

In some way I agree with you, if I understood your statement correctly. Often, the motive and consequences do not clash. But I'm creating a scenario in which a person can only choose one because many moral dilemmas arise not from when it's easy to distinguish black and white but when a trade-off is required.

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Aug 6 2009, 11:32 PM

Thinkingfox,

Moral dilemmas only exist because you CHOOSE to believe there is RIGHT and WRONG aka DUALITY.

If you step on a snake, the snake bite you. Is the snake evil?? No. Is the snake good?? No. Morality is irrelevant.

Ditto on most things in life. It is RIGHT or WRONG depending on your point of view.

Some people believe HONOR is more important than life. Some people don't.

A) Some people rather starve to death along with their cows.

B) Some people will kill the cows instead of starving to death.

Who is RIGHT?? (A) or (B)?? Who knows?? It is ALL dependent on your point of view.

Dreamer

All,

I think the question is WRONG to begin with.

A) Treat other like how you like to be treated.

B) Do not force your belief on others.

So, my ABSOLUTE MORALITY is people can believe whatever they choose to believe as long as their ACTION does not affect me. Vice versa, I would not do anything to AFFECT others unless I am force to defend myself.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Aug 7 2009, 12:55 AM

Mmmm... non duality, the core concept of Zhuang Zhi, Lao Zhi studies....

^that's because Zen is heavily influenced by the Qi Gong Culture back then in China. They share similar approach to reaching enlightenment.

This post has been edited by LittleGhost: Aug 7 2009, 09:47 AM

Folks,

Zen is an integration of Taoism and Buddhism.

Dreamer

For me, motive & consequences are inter-related. It's depends on how far a person plan or foresee...

Short-sighted or urgent situation, act according to motive and vice versa.

I'm a very kiasi person. I will think of all the possibilities and trying to get the whole pic together before react, if time allowed. In order to minimize any mistakes that can occur.

This post has been edited by wacko_joy: Aug 7 2009, 11:22 AM

Would yu want to chalk up Risk Management job? Fits your description.

For my personal understanding albeit a short version.
Motive = PRE
Consequences = POST

Regards, Joey

I agree that the snake example that you've used is outside the moral scope as wild animals are not like humans where they have no moral obligations.

You seem to believe in right and wrong too. Anyway, I accept that you have different view from me although I might defend my belief with reasons. However, that should not be seen as forcing my opinion on others.

Taoism is a method/knowledge of cultivating/preserving life. (aka Qi Gong).

This post has been edited by LittleGhost: Aug 7 2009, 06:09 PM