Quite a few things stuck out to me during this reading on Moral Arguments. I did not agree with all the ideas presented, especially the ideas behind acetic moral arguments– A good person is a good person who does good actions with a good motive, and good motives are motives that produce good actions– I don’t quite agree with because I think a person can be good even if their actions are bad, and people’s actions should not be included in defining them as good people. Intentions matter much more than actions, I remember learning about moral luck in Leadership 101, and had never considered the idea before, that if the result of someone’s bad intentions are good, they should still be assigned blame for their intentions.
One major question I took away from this reading is if someone is evaluating individual actions, do they evaluate the series of events that led up to that action? In reading I started wondering how actions relate to one another– for example, purchasing clothes from a fast-fashion company is theoretically “bad,” but if you give the clothes to someone and it makes them happy, are those two actions morally separate from one another? Does the immorality of purchasing the clothes in the first place place a certain negative association on the clothes themselves, as in do objects carry immorality? If though the morality of the action of giving is being judged, probably not, but if the morality of the clothes themselves are being judged then maybe? This to me is a question as to if the ends justify the means. I think that the actions leading up to an action should be considered when assigning “morality.”
I think this is a really good point. People can definitely be good despite bad actions. I find the concept of moral luck really interesting, as it deals with the connection between intentions, actions and consequences, which was discussed in the podcast.
I also like the point in your second paragraph. How far back should we trace ethical actions? Your example of fast-fashion companies was a great illustration of this question.
I think when judging whether a person is good or bad, more emphasis should be placed on the intentions of their actions as opposed to the outcome of their actions. By bringing up “moral luck” you make a strong argument that just because the result of someone’s actions is good does not mean that the person themself is good. In your second paragraph, you also bring up the issue of context. Not every action someone makes is individual and separate from all of the other actions they make. Could looking at one action as opposed to another change whether a person is good or bad?
I think it is really hard to ascribe either “good” or “bad” to a person because very few people have only done only moral or immoral actions (even the best people have done bad things). I think the intention of the action is really important as well because that is where I think morality truly lies. Someone could be trying their very best to act morally but slip-ups or accidents happen. Same with attempted murder — just because they did not murder someone, and are therefore not a murderer, does not mean they are a good person. It is really tricky though I do think it is important to try and withhold judgment when trying to understand people because some reasons for action cannot be known.