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

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

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

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

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.