“motive utilitarianism” is a pretty good theory of ethics.

[AgnosticBoy]

Moderator Intervention

This topic of "motive utilitarianism" does not belong in the Theism and Religion section since it has nothing to do with the two. I'm moving this to the Atheism & Secularism section.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This would be the main competition: a rights-based approach to ethics. Now, one advantage of the utilitarian approach is that it puts the concept of “better alternative” front and center.

But the two approaches have a great deal of overlap, at least in the real world. What’s good for human well-being is good for human rights, and vice versa.

What we’re up against is contrived situations for ethics classes in order to “highlight differences.” And this goes from 2000-level sophomore classes all the way up grad school and (different path) all the way up to professional ethics in medical and law school. What’s emphasized is well-being versus rights. When actually, the two dovetail together very nicely, thank you very much!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Motive Utilitarianism states that our initial moral task is to inculcate motives within ourselves (by means of teaching and repetition) that will be generally useful across the spectrum of the actual situations we are likely to encounter, rather than hypothetical examples which are unlikely to occur. It can be thought of as a hybrid between Act and Rule Utilitarianism, but it also attempts to take into account how human beings actually function psychologically.

Here's another explanation from Google Ai when i searched "motive utilitarianism":

Motive utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the goodness or badness of motives, rather than the rightness or wrongness of actions. It was first proposed by Robert Adams in 1976.

I look at this theory as being a piece of the puzzle to this moral theory. If otherwise, I'm not sure that focusing on motives alone would work.

I also think it is compatible with the Bible. In Jesus's teachings, we see that morality is not just a behavioral thing, but also a thing of the mind and heart. Sure, anyone can behave a certain way in public, but yet do so w/ bad intentions or ulterior motives (perhaps to virtue signal instead of really caring about the situation). Politicians come to mind (in Jesus's day it was the Pharisees).

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Sure, anyone can behave a certain way in public, but yet do so w/ bad intentions or ulterior motives (perhaps to virtue signal instead of really caring about the situation).

yes, no, maybe.

Perhaps it can start for that reason, and then it kind if “takes.”

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Perhaps it can start for that reason, and then it kind if “takes.”

Can happen other way around as well. I'm willing to bet a lot of politicians started their political career with good intentions. But then the political system corrupted them and then they just want more money and power.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

a lot of politicians started their political career with good intentions

In my mental landscape, I pretty much put politicians and corporate executives in the same category.

And really institutions in general, whether it’s religious, educational, medical, sports-related, etc. The initial impulse seems to be to deny and cover-up, even though it’s far worse when the story finally comes to light. For starters, we can look at the Boeing 737 MAX.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

System accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“ . . an entire pretend reality that includes unworkable chains of command, unlearnable training programs, unreadable manuals, and the fiction of regulations, checks, and controls. . “

—————————

I love this quote!

I just wish the guy had included it more towards the beginning of his article instead of the end.

Part 1 — https://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/98mar/valujet1.htm

The actual quote is in Part 3.

Sometimes The Atlantic gives access to a free article or two. Sometimes they have a pay wall.

But really, anyone 16 yrs of age and older has observed many situations in which there’s a gap between theory and practice. And sometimes a pretty big gap!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not sure if this is a related story because couldn't find details yet.. but I remember Boeing and SpaceX being in competition to win contracts from the US govt. for a space shuttle to transport crew into space. Looks like SpaceX has been more successful. Not sure, if that's why Boeing is overpromising.

I think this brings to mind the difficulty of following any moral standard since circumstances beyond your control can come up and influence your decision. Perhaps, thinking that even if you did apply your moral standard, it can still lead to a bad outcome (beyond your control) - in Boeing's case, your competitor might get the contract instead of you. So you might bend your standards some or maybe abandon them completely.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

in Boeing's case, your competitor might get the contract instead of you. So you might bend your standards some or maybe abandon them completely.

I want to be both realistic and optimistic. And I guess that’s the challenge.

“probably come back and bite us on the butt” and that might persuade people 50% of the time. And 50% of the time it doesn’t.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I want to be both realistic and optimistic. And I guess that’s the challenge.

“probably come back and bite us on the butt” and that might persuade people 50% of the time. And 50% of the time it doesn’t.

I man survival is based on a lot of hope and optimism. That's probably what keeps a lot of us going.