Morality in Motivations

Ead
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Morality in Motivations

What may be another interesting question is the role of motivation in people's actions. The act of giving to a food drive, for example, entails four parts: Motivation, Means, Action, and Result. The motivation is why one would want to give to a food drive. The means is how the food is collected. The Action is the act of giving to the food drive. And the result is what happens because of giving to the food drive.

 

Now, Means, Action, and Result can all be good or bad, and in combos. For instance, a person could steal the food to give to the food drive, or someone could give their own food to the food drive but it happens to have the result of giving people stomach aches. All three of these areas have many combos in which morality shifts around quite a bit.

 

But what about Motivation? My school recently had a food drive, and it was my Math class that raised the most food. Normally throughout the school, the motivation to give was out of pure charity, and about perhaps 5 pounds on average was raised per student. But in my math class, which is a difficult Calculus course for many, my teacher made a competition amongst her classes as to which class would raise the most food total, and the winning class would get a very helpful (and rare) lump of extra credit points. This changed the motivation from charity to self-improvement, and the result was insanely effective. An average of about 30 pounds of food was raised, and a total of over 3,000 pounds was collected within just 6 classes!

 

Now, the question becomes, is this motivation change moral or immoral? Charity motivation raised very little food, and hence would have a lesser good effect for the food drive and those needy, but self-improvement proved to be highly effective and provides for a greater amount given. But is that right to change the motivation around? Does it detract from the good effect of the food drive?

 

Now to apply this to theism morality. Does the morality of the whole sequence of events if the motivation to give is shifted from secular to God, or vice versa? Or does it change at all? And if one gives more than the other, is that one better for society than the other?

 

I believe it is an interesting question, which could be fun to discuss.

 


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
 ...I go with the end

 

...I go with the end result is all that matters...

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Ead
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ...I go with the end

Quote:
...I go with the end result is all that matters...

 

Is that to say the motivation doesn't matter, or that means and action does not matter as well? Because if it is the latter, then we run into the problem of "for the greater good", which is very dangerous indeed, in which anything is moral so long as the end effect has some benefit somewhere for someone, regardless of the means and actions that brought us there.

 

But the former is a neat question too, because motivations should probably be taken into account.


Scyth3s
Scyth3s's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Ead wrote:Quote: ...I go

Ead wrote:

Quote:
...I go with the end result is all that matters...

 

Is that to say the motivation doesn't matter, or that means and action does not matter as well? Because if it is the latter, then we run into the problem of "for the greater good", which is very dangerous indeed, in which anything is moral so long as the end effect has some benefit somewhere for someone, regardless of the means and actions that brought us there.

 

But the former is a neat question too, because motivations should probably be taken into account.

 

The end always reflects the means, and the motivation is completely irrelavent.

Pardon the harsh allegory, I don't have the energy to make one up so I'll use a historical one:

Means: You purge Europe by killing 10 million Jews.

End: Europe is purged. 10 million Jews are dead.

 

What I'm saying is that if the end is good, the means were good, and if the end is bad, the means were bad (or ineffective). Did you have to kill 10 million to get to power? The end is you in power, but 10 million are dead. The end is bad (10 mill dead regardless of whether you are "good" or not), the means are bad.

 

I hope thats an understandable post seeing as I'm running off of 28 hours of waking time.

View my Atheist blog, shared with two friends!

www.faithistheenemy.blogspot.com -Daniel the "Scientist"


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Scyth3s wrote:Ead

Scyth3s wrote:

Ead wrote:

Quote:
...I go with the end result is all that matters...

 

Is that to say the motivation doesn't matter, or that means and action does not matter as well? Because if it is the latter, then we run into the problem of "for the greater good", which is very dangerous indeed, in which anything is moral so long as the end effect has some benefit somewhere for someone, regardless of the means and actions that brought us there.

 

But the former is a neat question too, because motivations should probably be taken into account.

 

The end always reflects the means, and the motivation is completely irrelavent.

Pardon the harsh allegory, I don't have the energy to make one up so I'll use a historical one:

Means: You purge Europe by killing 10 million Jews.

End: Europe is purged. 10 million Jews are dead.

 

What I'm saying is that if the end is good, the means were good, and if the end is bad, the means were bad (or ineffective). Did you have to kill 10 million to get to power? The end is you in power, but 10 million are dead. The end is bad (10 mill dead regardless of whether you are "good" or not), the means are bad.

 

I hope thats an understandable post seeing as I'm running off of 28 hours of waking time.

I completely disagree. Lets take an example:

Motivation: removing religion from the world

Means: killing all the religious people

Results: religion has disappeared from the world.

Most of us here would say that the result here is a good one, however I for one think that the means by which it was achieved is a horrible one. Don't you?

I say that the morality lies in the motivation and the means. It's the result that's irrelevant. Lets take an example:

Imagine that you're in a war zone, and there are a bunch of civilians who fear for their lives and desperately want to get out. You are their only one who can do that with your bus. You decide to give them a lift and drive them out of there. However, on the way, you crash and they all die. So we have it like this:

Motivation: save people from danger

Means: driving them out of the dangerous place in a bus

Results: everyone died

Was your actions moral or immoral? If results are all that matters...

Ead wrote:
Now, the question becomes, is this motivation change moral or immoral? Charity motivation raised very little food, and hence would have a lesser good effect for the food drive and those needy, but self-improvement proved to be highly effective and provides for a greater amount given. But is that right to change the motivation around? Does it detract from the good effect of the food drive?

I do not see how doing something with the sole motivation to improve things for yourself is somehow immoral without taking into account the means by which you do it. In your example it would be like this:

Motivation: get a lump of extra credit points

Means: giving more food to the food drive than others

Results: the food drive recieves more food (and possibly, you get a lump of extra credit points)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


RickshawCannon
RickshawCannon's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-12-29
User is offlineOffline
I believe that there's many

I believe that there's many ways to look at it. I recently read some Nietzche and here's a cut out on his thoughts of Master and Salve Morality, which applies to this in an awkward way: Master-Morality is to refer to morality directed to actions and their consequences, while Slave-Morality is to refer to actions and their intentions. That is to say Master-Morality is the morality of comprehension while the Slave-Morality is the morality of resentment. And as such Master Morality is more concerned with the final outcome while Slave Mortality is more concerned with the many possible outcomes, ironically enough should something of good intentions go horribly wrong, it is still hated, if not more so because of the actual outcome.

I believe that the motivation shouldn't matter usually, the result should, because in reality we ought to be more concerned with the consequences then any underlying motivation. Both matter, but in most cases its the result.

I had the same experience with my English teacher, let's say it worked! I think that if you're too preoccupied with the motivations it becomes very difficult to appreciate or shun the result, which is ultimately the most important thing as it has happen.

Hopefully this been a good first post Sticking out tongue

 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Scyth3s wrote:What I'm

Scyth3s wrote:

What I'm saying is that if the end is good, the means were good, and if the end is bad, the means were bad (or ineffective). Did you have to kill 10 million to get to power? The end is you in power, but 10 million are dead. The end is bad (10 mill dead regardless of whether you are "good" or not), the means are bad.

 

I hope thats an understandable post seeing as I'm running off of 28 hours of waking time.

It's not a question of "means" at all, but of will.

A good will is the only thing that is inherently good. I take the exact opposite stance in that the will and intention is the only thing that matters. What comes of the action is totally irrelevant.

This is why:

We, as human beings, cannot predict the future. We can, to a limited extent, try to figure out what will make people happy in the long run, but we are miserably bad at doing it. The reason for this is that we have absolutley no knowledge of what will make other people happy, and less knowledge still of what will make us happy. Happiness, therefore, is a hypothetical imperative. It is something that might happen, given our actions, but it is not garunteed.

Let me modify your example:

Hitler had a bad will, and intended to maim and murder 20 million Jews and conquer all of Europe. However, in 2050, it is discovered that Hitler's unethical research on Jews yielded the cure for all cancers. As a result, billions of people are saved.

Is Hitler now a good person? Were his actions now good?

Of course not. Hitler's actions were evil no matter what the consequences, because his will was evil.

 

Another example:

Bob Smith has a very good will. He intends to help his neighbor, who is freezing to death, by providing him with a gas furnace at his own expense. Bob offers to pay for the gas in the furnace, and his neighbor is incredibly grateful. However, Bob had accidentally given his neighbor a broken furnace, and it causes his neighbor's house (and the rest of the neighborhood) to burn down, killing dozens.

 

Were Bob's actions evil because he caused so much suffering?

No. Bob's actions were good because he had a good will. It doesn't matter what happens in the distant future, because Bob could not have predicted the future or what might have happened. After all, a great good saving millions could come of the fire that saved dozen, and this good could beget far worse evils. It doesn't matter. All that matters is what Bob thought when he gave his neighbor the furnace.

 

 

 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RickshawCannon wrote:I

RickshawCannon wrote:

I believe that there's many ways to look at it. I recently read some Nietzche and here's a cut out on his thoughts of Master and Salve Morality, which applies to this in an awkward way: Master-Morality is to refer to morality directed to actions and their consequences, while Slave-Morality is to refer to actions and their intentions. That is to say Master-Morality is the morality of comprehension while the Slave-Morality is the morality of resentment. And as such Master Morality is more concerned with the final outcome while Slave Mortality is more concerned with the many possible outcomes, ironically enough should something of good intentions go horribly wrong, it is still hated, if not more so because of the actual outcome.

I believe that the motivation shouldn't matter usually, the result should, because in reality we ought to be more concerned with the consequences then any underlying motivation. Both matter, but in most cases its the result.

I had the same experience with my English teacher, let's say it worked! I think that if you're too preoccupied with the motivations it becomes very difficult to appreciate or shun the result, which is ultimately the most important thing as it has happen.

Hopefully this been a good first post Sticking out tongue

 

 

How is the result the most important? How can we say that the result came about from our actions at all? How can we possibly predict the "final result"? In the end, it all comes down to the will and intention of the person.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
RickshawCannon wrote:I

RickshawCannon wrote:

I believe that the motivation shouldn't matter usually, the result should, because in reality we ought to be more concerned with the consequences then any underlying motivation. Both matter, but in most cases its the result.

I had the same experience with my English teacher, let's say it worked! I think that if you're too preoccupied with the motivations it becomes very difficult to appreciate or shun the result, which is ultimately the most important thing as it has happen.

Hopefully this been a good first post Sticking out tongue 

(Yeah, good first post) Am I missing something? I think that a good motivation is the most important.
When people says to me "the road to Hell is paved by good intentions," I ask them:
"So are there any different intentions I should have?"

We make many decisions and if our motivation is good, then the result is more likely to be good. Actions with a bad motivation but a good result are rare, so a bad motivation isn't rational. Of course, doing the actions correctly so the result is good, should be automatic, if possible.
Example:
We should employ very young children in our daily chores at home, for example, washing of dishes. They will surely break a lot of stuff and wash poorly the rest of what survives (the result), but it's well worth of it. The purpose is to make them a decent people who can help their parents at home. Otherwise, their further life may be grim.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


RickshawCannon
RickshawCannon's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-12-29
User is offlineOffline
@TheotherguyMy reasoning is

@Theotherguy

My reasoning is that because the consequences are what actually happen instead of something which didn't (The difference between our examples are that in my case, one of the possibilities happened, while in your case the intended thing happen, but something contradictory to their actions also occuered, so for my cases they did the opposite of what they intended and your examples are when a person did something which they intended but something else happend somethign which they had no way of knowing which would happen.) And for such cases its the consequence that's important. Motivation has its importance but its usually more pratical to be more concerned with the consequence, something that happen rather than could've happen.

Even though Bob Smith meant well he killed dozens of people, can you even say that what he did was good to the people he killed and their relatives? He meant well, but he also made a mistake. The saying "So and So meant well" is commonly used by people. How can he possibly use "My intent was sincere" as a defense or an excuse for the killing of dozens of people? It's an accident but it still happen. The Hitler anaology really goes deep into such hypothetical questions like would you kill a baby to save a hundred people etc. Of course the act was wrong, but also in consequence the action did something good (And inthis case statisically speaking more good than bad) but of course it doesn't legitamize his crime in anyway, because that wasn't a factor in his choice. Both have their merits and both are important but ultimately its the consequences that are the most important, not saying that the intent isn't but obviously something that could've happen doesn't change reality in the ways something that did.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RickshawCannon

RickshawCannon wrote:

@Theotherguy

My reasoning is that because the consequences are what actually happen instead of something which didn't (The difference between our examples are that in my case, one of the possibilities happened, while in your case the intended thing happen, but something contradictory to their actions also occuered, so for my cases they did the opposite of what they intended and your examples are when a person did something which they intended but something else happend somethign which they had no way of knowing which would happen.) And for such cases its the consequence that's important. Motivation has its importance but its usually more pratical to be more concerned with the consequence, something that happen rather than could've happen.

Even though Bob Smith meant well he killed dozens of people, can you even say that what he did was good to the people he killed and their relatives? He meant well, but he also made a mistake. The saying "So and So meant well" is commonly used by people. How can he possibly use "My intent was sincere" as a defense or an excuse for the killing of dozens of people? It's an accident but it still happen. The Hitler anaology really goes deep into such hypothetical questions like would you kill a baby to save a hundred people etc. Of course the act was wrong, but also in consequence the action did something good (And inthis case statisically speaking more good than bad) but of course it doesn't legitamize his crime in anyway, because that wasn't a factor in his choice *emphasis added*. Both have their merits and both are important but ultimately its the consequences that are the most important, not saying that the intent isn't but obviously something that could've happen doesn't change reality in the ways something that did.

 

But you cannot possibly hold someone taking those actions responsible for anything that happens afterwards. The point is, when we say an action is "good" or "moral" we mean that the action is something that normal people "ought" to do. We mean that the person performing the moral act deserves praise and recognition, while the person performing the immoral act deserves derision.

It is possible to be both moral and foolish. Bob Smith had no knowledge of the broken furnace, so his choice was based on what knowledge he had. He could not have forseen that the furnace would catch on fire and kill dozens, but he should have checked to make sure. His actions were foolish, then, but not immoral. The immorality of the action comes from its intent, not from its consequences. If the furnace had not caught fire, it would not alter the morality of his actions at all.

I added the emphasis on your explaination of Hitler because it proves my point entirely. If Hitler cured cancer, it would not "legitimize his crime" (ie. make it moral) because it "wasn't a factor in his choice." His choice, of course, is the will and intent he had. What comes of the action is irrelevant in our judgement of whether or not the action was moral ("legitimizing" it).

Hitler deserves the blame for the consequences that his actions created only because his will was evil. If the consequences of his actions had been good, his actions would still have been evil. Bob Smith does not deserve the blame for the consequences of his actions, because the consequences were an unforseen accident. Bob Smith's actions were foolish, but they were not immoral.


Megatron
Superfan
Posts: 35
Joined: 2008-11-10
User is offlineOffline
 Ead wrote:What may be

 

Ead wrote:
What may be another interesting question is the role of motivation in people's actions. The act of giving to a food drive, for example, entails four parts: Motivation, Means, Action, and Result. The motivation is why one would want to give to a food drive. The means is how the food is collected. The Action is the act of giving to the food drive. And the result is what happens because of giving to the food drive.

 

Now, Means, Action, and Result can all be good or bad, and in combos. For instance, a person could steal the food to give to the food drive, or someone could give their own food to the food drive but it happens to have the result of giving people stomach aches. All three of these areas have many combos in which morality shifts around quite a bit.

 

But what about Motivation? My school recently had a food drive, and it was my Math class that raised the most food. Normally throughout the school, the motivation to give was out of pure charity, and about perhaps 5 pounds on average was raised per student. But in my math class, which is a difficult Calculus course for many, my teacher made a competition amongst her classes as to which class would raise the most food total, and the winning class would get a very helpful (and rare) lump of extra credit points. This changed the motivation from charity to self-improvement, and the result was insanely effective. An average of about 30 pounds of food was raised, and a total of over 3,000 pounds was collected within just 6 classes!

 

Now, the question becomes, is this motivation change moral or immoral? Charity motivation raised very little food, and hence would have a lesser good effect for the food drive and those needy, but self-improvement proved to be highly effective and provides for a greater amount given. But is that right to change the motivation around? Does it detract from the good effect of the food drive?

 

Now to apply this to theism morality. Does the morality of the whole sequence of events if the motivation to give is shifted from secular to God, or vice versa? Or does it change at all? And if one gives more than the other, is that one better for society than the other?

 

I believe it is an interesting question, which could be fun to discuss.

 

 

Since I lack religion, most people assume that I lack morality.  In reality, my morality is based upon these things: communal and personal growth, friendliness, self control, free thought, psychological stability, and altruism.  In actuality these keys will interact with each other and create many more concepts which are also part of this view of morality, but at its heart it relies upon these criteria.  

Evolution cannot be debated. 'Tis real.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
 It all boils down to the

 

It all boils down to the same old spiel about how you can't derive "ought" from "is".

 

i.e. Just because giving someone food has a positive result (e.g. they're no longer hungry), does not necessarily mean we OUGHT TO ALWAYS give food to people who are hungry.

 

And just because giving someone food can have a negative result (e.g. the food is bad and the person dies) does not necessarily mean that we OUGHT TO NEVER give food to people.

 

So you can't ascertain whether or not something is moral or immoral based purely on the end result. Suppose the person in the first example is hungry, but is also holding your family hostage. Is it moral to give the hungry person food? Suppose the person who died in the second example was the same hostage-taker, and you had given him some poisoned food because you were afraid he was going to harm your family. Now you're left with the question of whether your crime (killing the hostage-taker) was equal to HIS crime (taking your family hostage) and whether it was justified since you didn't actually KNOW he was going to harm anyone. You were simply afraid enough that he would.

 

The problem is that everyone, inside their own head, wants to be judged by their intentions. No matter if they're helping the needy or accidentally killing hundreds by some freak accident they never expected, we each, as individuals, want people to know what we INTENDED to do and not to judge us by the mere end result. I suspect mostly everyone, even those we consider the worst of criminals, thinks of him/herself as a good person at the end of the day. But this conflicts with everyone's desire to feel safe in their own environment. So it becomes a question of intentions for the person under the gun and his defenders (i.e. those who know him personally or have been in a similar situation before and can relate, etc) and a question of results for the person who has been affected (and those who know him/relate to his situation).

 

Even if we were able to KNOW what the alleged offender intended, I think it would be very hard for the affected person, as a human being, to overlook the results and say, "That's okay; I know you didn't mean it." He would expect some kind of justice. (Though we have to acknowledge that people have different temperaments, and so some would demand more justice than others, no doubt.)

 

I don't believe there is any rule of thumb for morality. It's something we made up, just like the concept of "inalienable rights". Certain morals are universal based on human experience (e.g. killing is bad or stealing is bad) while other morals are non-universal and based on cultural experience (e.g. eating cows is bad or having sex with someone under 18 is bad) while other morals are non-universal and based on personal experience and knowledge (e.g. abortion is bad or is not so bad).

 

And so: [attitude] Fuck any book that claims to sum up something so complex in ten memorizable rules. [/attitude]

 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: It all

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

It all boils down to the same old spiel about how you can't derive "ought" from "is".

 

i.e. Just because giving someone food has a positive result (e.g. they're no longer hungry), does not necessarily mean we OUGHT TO ALWAYS give food to people who are hungry.


I don't believe there is any rule of thumb for morality. It's something we made up, just like the concept of "inalienable rights". Certain morals are universal based on human experience (e.g. killing is bad or stealing is bad) while other morals are non-universal and based on cultural experience (e.g. eating cows is bad or having sex with someone under 18 is bad) while other morals are non-universal and based on personal experience and knowledge (e.g. abortion is bad or is not so bad).

 

This is true, it is the basis of the philosophy of ethics. Philosophers have been trying to determine since the dawn of man what we "ought" to do, and have come up with explainations from the divine to the metaphysical to the rational and the concrete.

But the fact of the matter is, it is still an open question that there doesn't appear to be any real answer to.

That doesn't mean that there are no wrong answers, though. Ayn Rand's moral egoism (what is morally right is what I want), for instance, is almost certainly wrong because it is arbitrary and unsupported by any reasoning other than her blind assertions. Moral relativism (morality is based on culture) is also almost certainly wrong, because it falls prey to the "is-ought" fallacy. Moral subjectivism (morality is based on what people feel)  is also wrong for the same reason. People may ACT in certain ways because of how they feel or what their culture says, but this doesn't mean that this is how they SHOULD act.

Any ethical system then, must be based on rational analysis of either actions or thoughts of people as they take those actions. It is very difficult not to be arbitrary in this sense, because there is really no way of knowing how people SHOULD act.

Kant said that people should act with good will, that is, their actions should be backed up by moral reasoning, respecting the dignity of rational beings.

Hume said that people should act according to their feelings, but that they should also respect the feelings of others.

Nietzche said that people should act to make themselves more powerful, more wealthy, or more healthy, or promoting those qualities in others.

Mill and others said that people should act to promote the most pleasure in the most number of people.

 

All of these have serious flaws, yet all have good reasoning to back them up. This is why the question of ethics is still open in Philosophy, and probably always will be.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Means and Motives

I believe the motivation and the means are all that matters. I don't think the result has any bearing on the morality. It's a matter of control. We have a goal in mind and we exert our limited influence on our environment to attempt to achieve our goal.

You can't say a failed rescue attempt is immoral because it was unsuccessful.

You can however say that a successful rescue attempt was immoral because it involved sacrificing some lives.

I submit that the results don't matter in issues of morality. If you try something and fail that's just how shit goes. The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.

But that's the awful thing about morals. They are completely subjective to the observer.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace