Do the Right Thing

Swan Red · January 23, 2017

An explainer, consider this a swan red is a dick containment thread. I am, in moral theory terms, a consequentialist, this means that I judge the rightness or wrongness of acts based on the consequences that result. I do allow that the actor can be judged separately from the act, hence if someones motives are good and there is a good chance that some positive outcome arises then they do not warrant criticism even if the actual outcomes are bad, for the actor intent/motives matters for the act outcomes matter.

Now I take my moral obligations seriously, this means if I am to consider an act right post hoc, I need to be able to evaluate the outcomes, if the outcomes are positive, roughly speaking, the act was a right act, if the outcomes negative the act was a wrong act, so for simplicity I will allow three types of acts.

Morally Right acts are those that have positive consequences.

Morally Wrong acts are those that have a negative consequences.

Morally Permissible acts are those that have neither a positive or negative outcome, or acts where we are not able to determine to any satisfactory degree whether the consequences are positive or negative.

If I claim that some action is morally right it means that I should act the same way in similar circumstances. If I claim that some action is morally wrong it means that I should not act the same way in similar circumstances and if something is morally permissible I am free to choose it or some other morally permissible act in similar circumstances.

So it makes no sense to me to say some act is right if I am not prepared to act that way. Not saying an act is right does not entail that I believe the act is wrong, the act may be morally permissible but I can't move from permissible to right or wrong without evaluating the consequences. Hence if I claim that hitting Nazi's is the right thing to do then I am morally obligated to hit Nazi's. If the outcomes are so clear that the act is morally mandated I am acting wrongly if, in similar circumstances I do not spontaneously attack Nazi's.

Now I have suggested in this thread that hitting Nazi's may not be morally permissible but morally wrong if we knew that one of the following were true,

A Nazi attacked someone in retaliation for the attack on Richard Spencer.

Someone became empathetic to Richard Spencer as a result of the attack

Richard Spencer was given more air time as a result of the attack

As Pipnasty has pointed out I do not know this and so fine I am not claiming that the act is wrong or the actor warrants moral criticism but these questions need answers if I am going to move from permissible to right/wrong. However if someone wants to insist that the act was right they need to act similarly in similar circumstances or they are not taking their moral obligations seriously and I've got no incentive to take their moral pronouncements seriously.

charlie clown · January 23, 2017