Morality debate

[BayouBengal07]

Hey guys, I have to do a debate tomorrow for my leadership seminar class. I have to argue that moral intentions do not lead to moral results.

Can anyone help me out? I could argue about all the various cruel regimes in history acting out of "moral" intentions like the conquistadores or the nazis and whatnot, but that would be establishing a moral code that they are bad. I have to not create a moral base to judge.

Any thoughts?

[James T. Kirk]

1. Moral intentions sometimes lead to moral results.

Immoral and amoral intentions rarely do.

[Heddi]

2. I think that firstly you have to define morals

and who is the one defining the morals?

Jerry Falwell has a set of morals that in no way are on the same spectrum as mine.

My mother has morals that mirror mine sometimes, but not always.

Everyone has their own moral compass. Some people think that hunting is immoral in every instance. Others think hunting is moral only if it's the only way to eat. Others think that hunting in no way is immoral regardless of the reasons.

So before you can argue about moral intentions and moral results, you first have to define what morals you're speaking about, who they apply to, and who came up with the set of morals being discussed.

[jpgray]

3. Well, first you have to distinguish between professed and actual intent

If it's professed you have it pretty easy--all kinds of ostensible do-gooders are in it for nasty things like power and sex. As far as genuinely trying to do good and always ending up doing evil, I dunno about arguing that one.