Character versus Consequence

Faye

Faye

^_^
Retired Staff
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
So, I agreed to take part in a formal philosophical debate on ethics. I didn't know what I was agreeing to debate before I said yes, and now I'm kind of regretting it. Oh well. Maybe you all can resolve the issue!

The question: What makes an individual a morally praiseworthy person? Are they a morally praiseworthy person based on their having 'good' intentions or should they instead be evaluated based on the goodness of the results of their actions independent of their intentions? Another way to frame the question is the distinction between character and consequences: is a person good who is intrinsically motivated to be good (a good character), or is a person good when they do good things regardless of what their motivation or intention is (a good act with the irrelevance of character)?

Which side is right?
 
I would side with 'consequence' as the most logically defensible position.

Good and bad are subjective qualifiers, and hence require a meta-position in order to develop a more solid (defensible) proposition.
 
The best definition of a "morally praiseworthy person" that I have found is "you're a good person even when no one else is looking" from the movie Seven Pounds.
 
A morally upstanding person complies with the moral rules of the time and place of their society.

I personally hold people accountable for their actions and the consequences of those actions, regardless of intent. It's more of a pain when they're my fucked up actions.
 
Overall judging by the actions is the easiest. Judging by the motivation definitely can overshadow the good of the action. One example is a previous coworker. She wouldn't do anything to help anyone unless someone with power was around or asking her to do it. I couldn't even get a yes or no as to whether she'd completed a task that was a prerequisite to me getting my work done. She would do everything she could to get out of "messy" work. Have a big wig show up and she's glad to do all the dirty work and smile through it. The work needed to be done, but her motives were not good. The percieved good by her doing these jobs really only led to more "not good" things because she was then trusted with other tasks, and would bully others into getting them done for her (like when something was her responsibility to be done before their job could be done she'd have the person get so annoyed they end up doing both parts.) To the big wigs she was considered wonderful and perfect, but they never saw what was behind the scenes, and since what we told them conflicted with what they saw, we of course must be troublemakers. Nothing good.
 
Character.
 
Matt3737 said:
I would side with 'consequence' as the most logically defensible position.

Good and bad are subjective qualifiers, and hence require a meta-position in order to develop a more solid (defensible) proposition.
Click to expand...

But if you're talking about a 'person', then the consequence isn't always something that they have any control over. So I suppose that there's actually the question of 'what is a person?'… because everyone is just as much of a social construct as they are a living breathing human being-- actually, in a lot of cases, moreso…

I had a friend who claimed to know how the upper plains of existence/heaven worked (he claimed to be a little bit psychic-- and in some ways I think he kind of was-- he would get these random 'notions' that would almost always turn out to be true) and he said that up there it's not that people are actively choosing to be good in the face of potentially harmful acts, it's that they're actually incapable of them… so yeah, maybe we've all got karma that we're carrying around and it makes us less capable of certain acts so even if we intend to do evil we will always cause good by virtue of that being an unchanging aspect of our character in a more cosmic sense… and we're all kind of positioned in such a way that we can only ever project a certain kind of energy or vibration or whatever.

Not that I think that argument would really go very far in a debate! :P
 
Good Intentions/Character...

Often times those who do good aren't even seen/known or they're seen as "bad", so intention is more important than consequence (for me). If a person intends to kill someone, but somehow ends up saving their life in the process...he's probably not a good guy (imo).
 
Character and intentions manifest as consequences and actions. People can and do put up facades but it is possible to see through these eventually. You can judge the heath and quality of a tree by its fruit. Eventually we all reap what we sow.

You can tell nothing about a person by a single aspect, yet every single thing about a person tells you something, and together they form a story of that person's character and who they actually are. If you want to know what sort of person you are- all you need to do is have a look at your own life and how you see the world.

Are you comfortable with yourself? Are you comfortable with others? What do others think of you? Who are the people in your life? You have you chosen to be friends with? Why have they been attracted to you? Why are you attracted to them? What is the condition of your relationships? Do you enjoy your work? Are you happy? Are you healthy? What is the condition of your property/possesions? What do you enjoy doing? How do you see others? How do you see the world? Have you achieved your goals? Why have you chosen your goals? What is imporatnt to you? Do you feel successful? What makes you happy? How do you deal with change? Do you think you are in control of your life? Are you passive or active in directing your life? Do you lie? Do you steal? Do you hurt others? are you defensive? Are you offensive? How do you speak/interact/engage/communicate with others? How do you stand? How do you walk? How do you dress? What do you eat? Even every lie holds certain inherent truths.

It is hard to judge whether one's actions are good or bad, as these concepts are social constructs dependant on culture and environment. But is possible to differentiate between effective and ineffective behaviour, healthy or harmful behaviour. Basically, you should be able to see how effective and healthy a person is by the quality of, and the way they live their life, the state and quality of their relationships, how they communicate and navigate with the world, and how happy and satisfied they are. It is almost impossible to separate character from consequences. You can take a dilpitated broken house, slap some fresh paint on it and fill it with nice furniture, but the house will remain structurally unsound, the cracks will eventually show and it will eventually go back to being an broken house that can fall apart.
 
Dragon said:
So, I agreed to take part in a formal philosophical debate on ethics. I didn't know what I was agreeing to debate before I said yes, and now I'm kind of regretting it. Oh well. Maybe you all can resolve the issue!

The question: What makes an individual a morally praiseworthy person? Are they a morally praiseworthy person based on their having 'good' intentions or should they instead be evaluated based on the goodness of the results of their actions independent of their intentions? Another way to frame the question is the distinction between character and consequences: is a person good who is intrinsically motivated to be good (a good character), or is a person good when they do good things regardless of what their motivation or intention is (a good act with the irrelevance of character)?

Which side is right?
Click to expand...

Good intentions don't matter so much. People have done very suspect things but been themselves convinced of their goodness.
Character is a different story.
Character=Good person
 
Reverie said:
Good intentions don't matter so much. People have done very suspect things but been themselves convinced of their goodness.
Character is a different story.
Character=Good person
Click to expand...

Could you clarify the difference between having good intentions and a good character more from your perspective?
 
It depends on whether you define "moral" as a biological or genetic predisposition. If someone is "moral" by nature then the assumption is they do what they do not by choice but because it is a biological imperative. If someone is moral by choice, the belief is that they are good because the choice is moral. But that may not be true. Question first is what does "moral" mean? Is it one action or many? Is someone morally praiseworthy if they are moral out of duty? Someone can perform many moral actions from good intentions and perform one dispicable act from bad intentions. Are they still morally praiseworthy then? And how are we linking morality to goodness? Someone may be moral from obligation or expectation, and not from personal intrinsic interest or desire to be "good". And an act may have positive consequences but yet be based on immoral motives or reasons. So, if you're trying to decide on moral praiseworthiness, the key is actions I guess. But someone can be good (heart wise) and yet not do anything to show or display their goodness. But if someone doesn't "see" this goodness, then they are not likely to be seen as good, much less morally praiseworthy. And the word "praiseworthy" suggests that it's based on someone's perception. Someone must be able to observe and recognize the behavior as a moral attribute or trait or action. And what criteria is being used to decide what is praiseworthy? Does praiseworthiness mean that the actions of the "moral" person are good regardless of their popularity? A person may do what's morally right but not be praised for it because the moral action is not considered a public or social good, beneficial to everyone's perceived interest. Would it be appropriate to consider it praiseworthy if it's not accepted or approved by others except those who are making that judgment of praiseworthiness?
 
Dragon said:
Could you clarify the difference between having good intentions and a good character more from your perspective?
Click to expand...

Misguided good intentions can exist in a person who'd character is questionable, like a misogynist who genuinely believes women's place is in the kitchen and sets out to try to do what it takes to save women from themselves and the corrupt times we live that have derailed women from their true happiness.
Someone with good character has good intentions. I'd define someone with a good character as someone who knows the difference between objective right and wrong and acts on it. :) Depends on what you mean with good character I suppose. And I'm assuming there is an objective right and wrong, which I personally do though it flexes with circumstance.
 
What about the person who gives to charity but does so for recognition, and praise and the person that gives to charity out of the goodness of their heart, yet tells no one.

I would say that the question is a trick question. Praiseworthy? If you do something good for praise it automatically becomes selfish and no longer good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top