If you do a good thing, for bad reasons, is it still a 'good' thing? Use any definition of 'good' you like. Also, I think that regardless of how case-dependent this question may be, I'd very much like to keep rage-saturated condemnations at bay (save those for the other hate-threads).

Good Morning,

Question: To what extent does one's motives figure in evaluating the ethics of an action? Does it figure at all?[INDENT]Example: The OP in this thread suggests that despite wholesale condemnation of the wealthy, there are some actions the bloated-rich have taken that have brought 'good' to others. If I'm filthy rich, having bathed in avarice my whole adult life and then to give myself some tax breaks, make large contributions to charitable foundations, do the self-serving motives devalue the benefits of the action?
[/INDENT]If you do a good thing, for bad reasons, is it still a 'good' thing? Use any definition of 'good' you like. Also, I think that regardless of how case-dependent this question may be, I'd very much like to keep rage-saturated condemnations at bay (save those for the other hate-threads).

Thanks

Good Morning,

Question: To what extent does one's motives figure in evaluating the ethics of an action? Does it figure at all?[INDENT]Example: The OP in this thread suggests that despite wholesale condemnation of the wealthy, there are some actions the bloated-rich have taken that have brought 'good' to others. If I'm filthy rich, having bathed in avarice my whole adult life and then to give myself some tax breaks, make large contributions to charitable foundations, do the self-serving motives devalue the benefits of the action?
[/INDENT]If you do a good thing, for bad reasons, is it still a 'good' thing? Use any definition of 'good' you like. Also, I think that regardless of how case-dependent this question may be, I'd very much like to keep rage-saturated condemnations at bay (save those for the other hate-threads).

It is important to note that "good things" and "good persons" are categorically different.

To say someone did a "good thing" has no bearing on whether the person is "good". It could have been random, it could have been forced. It is the motivation to pursue the "right" action that makes a person good.

How the heck does a utilitarian learn from past mistakes then?

Good Morning,

Question: To what extent does one's motives figure in evaluating the ethics of an action? Does it figure at all?[INDENT]Example: The OP in this thread suggests that despite wholesale condemnation of the wealthy, there are some actions the bloated-rich have taken that have brought 'good' to others. If I'm filthy rich, having bathed in avarice my whole adult life and then to give myself some tax breaks, make large contributions to charitable foundations, do the self-serving motives devalue the benefits of the action?
[/INDENT]If you do a good thing, for bad reasons, is it still a 'good' thing? Use any definition of 'good' you like. Also, I think that regardless of how case-dependent this question may be, I'd very much like to keep rage-saturated condemnations at bay (save those for the other hate-threads).

Thanks

Good Morning,

Question: To what extent does one's motives figure in evaluating the ethics of an action? Does it figure at all?
[INDENT]Example: The OP in this thread suggests that despite wholesale condemnation of the wealthy, there are some actions the bloated-rich have taken that have brought 'good' to others. If I'm filthy rich, having bathed in avarice my whole adult life and then to give myself some tax breaks, make large contributions to charitable foundations, do the self-serving motives devalue the benefits of the action?
[/INDENT]If you do a good thing, for bad reasons, is it still a 'good' thing? Use any definition of 'good' you like. Also, I think that regardless of how case-dependent this question may be, I'd very much like to keep rage-saturated condemnations at bay (save those for the other hate-threads).Thanks

How the heck does a utilitarian learn from past mistakes then?

Hey Boagie,

So you would judge the ethics of the action 'good' if the intent was selfless or 'bad' of the intent was selfish?

Assuming we can't read other people's minds (and, of course, assuming even the actor even knows why he/she is doing something), how might any act ever be deemed ethical or unethical? It is precisely because of this "assuming we know ones' motives"-aspect that I generally will place a premium on the effects rather than trying to guess at someone's reasons. What say ye? Thanks

If the effect is good, as in preforming a service to an individual and/or the community, the intent will most often be assumed correctly or incorrectly to be good. You are right however only the subject could know his own heart. When it comes to legal matters, society does its best to descern the intent of the individual relative to crimminal action and the circumstances under which the action took place and is judged accordingly. Intention does not necessarily define how benifical the act will be, sometimes with the intention to do harm, the intent is foiled and the opposited of the subjects intent is realized. In order for an action to be considered as a virtuous act though, it must be intended, ironically intent is often misread, if the action is crimminal or if the action is virtuous often the defination of intent is read backward through its effect. The deck is somewhat stacked by how harmful or benifical the act was. So, yes your right, we all rely mostly on the effects of an action in judging the intent.