Where is, "right" and "wrong"? "Moral" and "immoral" and, "non moral"? An important theory of ethics is that we can define "right" and "wrong" in terms of "good" and "bad". Right is what produces good consequences, and wrong is what produces bad consequences. The theory is called, "consequentialism". "Good" and "bad", and "right" and "wrong" have always been considered the most important terms in ethics. The others you list are much less important.
I agree that "good" and "bad" are most important for ethics. Most every term in my list has an opposite or a negative; I took for granted that readers knew that and could supply the negatives of my positive terms. E.g
., "happiness"; "unhappiness." Etc.
As you may be aware, I definte "right" in context as: It is right
to be good and to do good. And likewise "wrong" is defined as: It is wrong
to be bad and to do bad.
I have discovered a relation between intention and consequences, namely:If my intent and the consequences of my actions are continually badly mis-matched then this points to recurring bad judgment on my part. The speeding driver never intended to hit and kill the young child - but the consequences of his act of speeding made it wrong.
With regard to responsibility, one is not considered to be responsible for actions and circumstances that are beyond one's control.
Moral luck plays a role here.
Since valuation and goodness are matching processes, as explained in my papers, links to which were given in the original post, I like employing the relations of 'a match' and 'a mis-match' to explicate various ethical states and concepts.
I just noticed that justice was left out from that list ...a serious omission which I now want to rectify.
Moral, and Immoral to me are adjectives used in making judgments about morality
- which is defined in my essays as a matching (in the case of morality) or a mis-matching (in the case of immorality) between one's ideals [for a human being] and one's conduct. To the degree your actions match (that portion of) your self-image, or Self, concerned with the issue of 'What are the highest aspirations for which a person could reach?' you are moral, you possess morality
. Briefly stated, it is self being Self
"self" = you as a Systemic Value and as an Extrinsic Value. "Self" = you as Intrinsic Value.
When you intrinsically value yourself and others, you are being moral.
As to "non--moral" -- that is the perspective of, for example, the hospital physician, or of a news reporter, in regard to a patient in a bed -- as distinct from the perspective of, say, the patient's close family why may intrinsically value the patient.The latter apply the Ethical perspective.
As you know, I regard morality
as moral value:
morality has the same structure as value
, namely a one-to-one correspondence between two sets, a matching.