What is the most important component of morality? (choices, choice)

[Fluffy]

Suppose a man is suddenly jilted by his lover for another man. He gets incredibly angry and decides to shoot them both. He then goes and does so and they both die.

What this rather happy scenario is supposed to illustrate are the 4 different components of morality which people analyse when making a moral judgement:

1. Motivation (His anger and/or the fact that he has been jilted)
2. Intention (He intends to kill them both)
3. Action (He takes a course of action which he believes will result in their death)
4. Result (They both die)

Should all of these components be considered when deciding on the morality of a situation? If any are unknown, can such a judgement be considered valid? Are there any other components that should be taken into consideration that are not already accurately covered by these 4? Are any of these 4 unnecessary (one might think that the difference between 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary for example)?

And now the big question: Are any of these components more important than any other or are they all equal?

[MidnightBlue]

Well, you've thrown me. I thought the components were going to be more along the lines of compassion, reason, self-interest, etc. I'm too tired right now to shift gears and think in the terms you've outlined, but I'll return to it later, and maybe I'll know what I think by then.

[Matt88]

the only thing that matters is the action the person takes. You can have the motivation, and the intention, to kill someone, but if you decide not to go through with it and do nothing, everything is moot.

[michel]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Well, you've thrown me. I thought the components were going to be more along the lines of compassion, reason, self-interest, etc. I'm too tired right now to shift gears and think in the terms you've outlined, but I'll return to it later, and maybe I'll know what I think by then.

Same here (although I hsaven't got your excuse of being tired); 'Other' being Acceptance of others and compassion. Thinking about it though, they may be inferred in your choices.

[Simon Gnosis]

Originally Posted by Matt88

the only thing that matters is the action the person takes. You can have the motivation, and the intention, to kill someone, but if you decide not to go through with it and do nothing, everything is moot.

Perfectly put, nuff said.

[Scarlett Wampus]

If you something like, "You are defined by the things you do. Look at your life, what results from what you are doing right now. That is exactly who you are, that is all you are." many will be shocked at looking at themselves like this. It can shake someone up and that might be useful but its not true that only the results of our actions count. Everyone carries around their own internal world and the struggles that go on there largely determine what actions they take in the external world. Its all connected. If you concentrate too much on one perspective then much will suffer from neglect and so the whole suffers. I think all those things mentioned should be examined.

Ugh, such superficial rhetoric from me lately. The thing is though, the question asked pretty much involves the whole of ethics! Its hard not to generalise in some way.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Suppose a man is suddenly jilted by his lover for another man. He gets incredibly angry and decides to shoot them both. He then goes and does so and they both die.

What this rather happy scenario is supposed to illustrate are the 4 different components of morality which people analyze when making a moral judgement:

1. Motivation (His anger and/or the fact that he has been jilted)
2. Intention (He intends to kill them both)
3. Action (He takes a course of action which he believes will result in their death)
4. Result (They both die)

Should all of these components be considered when deciding on the morality of a situation? If any are unknown, can such a judgement be considered valid? Are there any other components that should be taken into consideration that are not already accurately covered by these 4? Are any of these 4 unnecessary (one might think that the difference between 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary for example)?

And now the big question: Are any of these components more important than any other or are they all equal?

What you have presented, here, are just the mechanics of a deadly scenario. They tell us nothing about the morality involved.

Morality essentially describes a process of qualification. And qualifications require a criteria. So morality refers to the process of applying some ethical criteria to a given scenario as a way of qualifying that scenario "morally".

What ethical criteria would you apply to the scenario you've presented, and why? What if someone else uses a different ethical criteria and therefor comes to a different conclusion about the morality of that scenario?

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by Matt88

the only thing that matters is the action the person takes. You can have the motivation, and the intention, to kill someone, but if you decide not to go through with it and do nothing, everything is moot.

I disagree with your analysis. If you decide not to go through with it, that is a change in intent.

I voted for intent and action. Our court system supports the idea that intent is a large element of action.

In your example above, I see the other man with my girlfriend. I take my gun, fire every round at them, but miss 17 times. (Maybe I'm a lousy shot.) I'm guilty of two counts of attempted murder.

Let's say my girlfriend is having sex with my upstairs neighbor. I'm in my apartment, cleaning my gun. The gun goes off, through my ceiling, the floor above, my neigbor's bed, and kills both of them. My intent was to clean my gun, but two people died. I'm guilty of involuntary manslaughter. (But I might have some difficulty proving that the gun went off accidentally, given my obvious motive.)

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Should all of these components be considered when deciding on the morality of a situation?

Motivation isn't an element of morality. It does, however, help prove intent.

Everybody has some motivation to commit some crime. As long as they restrain themselves, I don't care.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If any are unknown, can such a judgement be considered valid?

Unless I'm on a jury, I generally don't care. I am not the final arbiter of morality.

If I am on a jury, I'll be doing my best to infer the unknown components from the available evidence.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Are any of these 4 unnecessary?

Motivation is unnecessary. If I can prove you intended to kill a person, and did kill that person, that's murder. You're equally guilty whether you're a jilted lover or a bored sociopath.

[EnhancedSpirit]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Suppose a man is suddenly jilted by his lover for another man. He gets incredibly angry and decides to shoot them both. He then goes and does so and they both die.

What this rather happy scenario is supposed to illustrate are the 4 different components of morality which people analyse when making a moral judgement:

1. Motivation (His anger and/or the fact that he has been jilted)
2. Intention (He intends to kill them both)
3. Action (He takes a course of action which he believes will result in their death)
4. Result (They both die)

Should all of these components be considered when deciding on the morality of a situation? If any are unknown, can such a judgement be considered valid? Are there any other components that should be taken into consideration that are not already accurately covered by these 4? Are any of these 4 unnecessary (one might think that the difference between 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary for example)?

And now the big question: Are any of these components more important than any other or are they all equal?

Back in Oklahoma, if this man walked in on his spouse and her lover, and killed them on the spot, he would not be found guilty, it's known as a crime of passion. If he waited and went back and got them latter, it would be pre meditated murder.

But this thread is not about the legalities of these acts.

The most important part of making moral decisions is in controlling your emotions, and not letting your emotions control you. Emotions are very powerful, and can start the ball rolling in many directions.

In passing judgement of someone else's decision, we are told not to do this.