Are You a Consequentialist Moralist, or a Categorical Moralist?

Consequentialist moralists: If the consequence of your actions are something you desire, then it's moral.

Categorical moralists: If the action is inherently bad, it's immoral. Such as rape, or murder.

So which one are you?

 

I'm Categorical. Many people use immoral means to get what they want. They know its immoral, but desire>morals.

 

If you're saying ends justify the means, then I suppose consequential. However, humans are generally fickle and it's rather hard to place a blanket over every single situation and label it under 2 categories. You could say the ends justify the means for something, but most people would agree it's wrong to rape someone because you want a child, for example.

 

Neither.

Consequentialist's seem a bit iffy.

If the consequences of your actions are something you desire, then nothing would be wrong.

If I were to say to someone I'm going to kill them.
They wouldn't say that I'm a moral man because I've achieved my desired consequence.

As for Categorical moralists:

This is all good for rape and murder, however, it doesn't justify the petty incidents. What about stealing when in need?

There is yet to be a set system of morals that I wholeheartedly agree upon.

 

Admittedly, I did kind of leave my definition of consequentialism open, and susceptible to scrutiny. I think Swan said it best (and honestly, I can't believe I forgot the saying): The ends justify the means.

Well, do YOU find stealing, no matter the situation, to be bad, or immoral?

Very well answered. I guess I should have mentioned these are usually used in the moral reasoning for Justice. So, they aren't the only moral theories.

As for the other part, I can't say I'm either one 100%. I'm leaning towards consequentialism. I think categorical moralism would be the easiest to defend of the two.

 

No, there are very few things I find inherently wrong.

Even with the added 'the ends justify the means', I still do not like consequentialism. For example, I decide to purchase a gun, and shoot my next door neighbor. Why? He constantly mows the lawn at 9am when I'm still sleeping, and I got fed up, and, as an attempts to rectify my damaged circadian rhythm, I decided to take matters in my own hands and kill him. Now my body clock is fixed, and I can live a much happier life without having to worry about partial sleep deprivation.

No, the ends do not justify the means.

 

I feel that a deontological - or categorical - approach to ethics is unsuitably rigid and often doesn't acknowledge the pragmatic nature of human conduct. A deontological approach might, for example, view lying to a crazed gunman about your friend's whereabouts as immoral. In such circumstances, we would all lie to the gunman. To suggest that we would not is purely idealistic. The basis for human conduct is almost always teleological - we pursue an end and our actions facilitate the achievement of said ends.

 

It's not a dichotomy. Seems more appropriate to call it a continuum. Am I more one than another? Sure. Consequentialist.

 

I didn't vote, neither.
You should have put a third option for other. I don't think you can fit most life circumstances in the categories, like the examples mentioned above. Even though the consequentialist was a bit more open. And part because I'm religious.

 

i dont believe in morals. period.

 

Why is this?

 

it is merely a creation of the mind in this life. it is an illusion. it is a nonfactual truth brainwashed into general acceptance by society.

 

I think you mean ethics lol, ethics is the society driven road that leads each and every person to develop their own morals.

Morals are what you individually believe is just and unjust. So if you are saying that you don't believe in morals then that is a moral choice right there.

 

That's a hard one. I can probably say that I'm a consequentialist, but only upto a certain point.

I think it just depends on the situation, things like your personal beliefs (could be based on religion, law of the land etc.) and social pressure can be a big influence in what morals you follow.

 

So why don't you go out and steal things from your neighbor?

 

two reasons:

1. I would go to jail.
2. I was not exempt from the brainwashing. Fortunately I have been able to develop significant critical thinking skills enough to realize whats actually going on. Still, whether I can consciously recognize it or not, i cannot consciously change that which has been instilled into my subconscious. Therefore, underlying behaviors,beliefs, and "morals" still reside in my subconscious which can produce an undesirable feeling when considering such an action.

 

Really man think about what you're saying lol...you're defining morals completely wrong and honestly your argument is ridiculous.
Morals are what you consider right and wrong, you're not brainwashed because this is what you believe lol, the feeling you get isn't "undesirable" because that is something you yourself, your own subconscious is telling you is right/wrong.

Now if you mean someone saying I dunno, killing is wrong because if you didn't everyone around you would rally against you then that would be social ethics, not morality.

Now if you're talking about someone who is told so much that "this is right and this is wrong other wise this will happen to you" then that is still a form of social ethics because they don't truly believe it. They only believe that they feel this way because they feel threatened in some other fashion that they override the opinionated aspect of their brain and conform out of fear.

 

lol stop looking for attention. I understand that all you care about is that i replaced ethics with morals. They often go together, therefore i may have answered a little hastily. regardless, my response is still perfectly applicable as an answer to Jimmy's question as he was on the same page as I.

stop trying to be smart by focusing on a small technicality.

 

Lol, there is a huge difference between the two and yes they are linked to one another but are heavily differed in how they affect someone.

Ethics are the morals of a large group, this affects the government system, economic system, justice system, etc etc. This can and will apply to an individual if he is applying his answer/action based on the society he lives in. Ethics usually aren't based on right and wrong, but based on other aspects like greatest good, most advisable, etc.

Morals are a persons distinction of right and wrong, they're own personal feeling on the subject, these are not feigned or obscured and thus your "brainwashing" concept doesn't work.

So yes I understood what you were asking but I think if you're going to actually give an opinion on this, you should know the difference. So sorry that I apparently was trying to act intelligent, I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were going on about. Which you obviously didn't.

 

I do/did know the difference. as i said, i answered a bit hastily...i agree. I appreciate that you were trying to clear it up in case i didnt actually know what i was talking about. All is well.