What is a right action?

[Peter Holmes]

Just a sidebar on how these discussions splurge in different directions. Here are the OP and the first response.

OP: 'We discuss that human is a moral agent in another thread. The rightness of action, however, must be derived from a moral principle since without moral principle one cannot find the right action therefore morality is an illusion. We also need a definition for right, wrong, evil, and good. These are defined here. But is there a moral principle? The answer is yes. We are similar therefore we have to be fair. Fairness is the moral principle for the rightness of an action.'

First response: 'A morally right or good action is an action, to S, that is in line with S's preferences for interactive behavior, with an emphasis on the behavior that S feels is recommendable-to-obligatory rather than just permissible.'

In answer to the question 'What is a right action?', the OP makes claims: humans are moral agents; the rightness of an action must come from a moral principle; we need definitions of the words 'right', 'wrong', 'evil' and 'good'; and the moral principle for the rightness of an action is fairness. This is a conceptual mess that gets us nowhere - but at least it's mainly on topic.

And the first response is on the nail: clear and succinct. It wisely ignores the OP and just answers the title question. Discussion underway.

As it happens, I enjoy the amazing way discussions digress in unpredictable directions - but I think it helps to go back to the title now and then. Like our teachers told us to in exams.

[bahman]

Just a sidebar on how these discussions splurge in different directions. Here are the OP and the first response.

OP: 'We discuss that human is a moral agent in another thread. The rightness of action, however, must be derived from a moral principle since without moral principle one cannot find the right action therefore morality is an illusion. We also need a definition for right, wrong, evil, and good. These are defined here. But is there a moral principle? The answer is yes. We are similar therefore we have to be fair. Fairness is the moral principle for the rightness of an action.'

First response: 'A morally right or good action is an action, to S, that is in line with S's preferences for interactive behavior, with an emphasis on the behavior that S feels is recommendable-to-obligatory rather than just permissible.'

In answer to the question 'What is a right action?', the OP makes claims: humans are moral agents; the rightness of an action must come from a moral principle; we need definitions of the words 'right', 'wrong', 'evil' and 'good'; and the moral principle for the rightness of an action is fairness. This is a conceptual mess that gets us nowhere - but at least it's mainly on topic.

And the first response is on the nail: clear and succinct. It wisely ignores the OP and just answers the title question. Discussion underway.

As it happens, I enjoy the amazing way discussions digress in unpredictable directions - but I think it helps to go back to the title now and then. Like our teachers told us to in exams.

Actually, I wanted to discuss one thing in this thread: We are similar therefore we have to be fair. The rest, good, evil, etc. is a matter of definition and it is relevant to the discussion but I put them elsewhere so we could focus the discussion about the principle of morality here.

[Terrapin Station]

The above are supported by researched findings.

So the problem here is this: just how are we saying that the third-person observables in question (the regions we see activated on the MRI, for example) are thoughts that they're not consciously aware of?

[commonsense]

In answer to the question 'What is a right action?', the OP makes claims: humans are moral agents; the rightness of an action must come from a moral principle; we need definitions of the words 'right', 'wrong', 'evil' and 'good'; and the moral principle for the rightness of an action is fairness.

I’d say that the claims made in the OP do not provide any answer at all to the core question, however examination of these claims, definitions and principles may become necessary if there’s divergence of opinions among the posters. As to the core question itself, even a definition of ‘right’ is unnecessary, and a definition of ‘principle’ is only necessary if ‘right’ depends on it.

[commonsense]

Actually, I wanted to discuss one thing in this thread: We are similar therefore we have to be fair.

What obligation have I to be fair? Whatever you deem fairness to be, why must I be fair to anyone? Whatever fairness is, does a lack of fairness have to be evil?

In the following sense, I see no such obligation: it isn’t wrong to be selfish; it isn’t wrong to be altruistic.

[bahman]

Actually, I wanted to discuss one thing in this thread: We are similar therefore we have to be fair.

What obligation have I to be fair?

Similarity.

Whatever you deem fairness to be, why must I be fair to anyone?

Just put yourself in the position of another person who is involved in a moral situation and see what you would do if you were in his/her place. We are similar, aren't we?

Whatever fairness is, does a lack of fairness have to be evil?

No, but it is wrong. Evil is not wrong perse given the definition of evil.

In the following sense, I see no such obligation: it isn’t wrong to be selfish; it isn’t wrong to be altruistic.

It is not wrong to be selfish given the circumstances. You have to be so right in order to worth selfishness. There is no right and wrong quality. The point is to be in the place that is fair.

[Peter Holmes]

Actually, I wanted to discuss one thing in this thread: We are similar therefore we have to be fair. The rest, good, evil, etc. is a matter of definition and it is relevant to the discussion but I put them elsewhere so we could focus the discussion about the principle of morality here.

I don't see why our being similar means we have to be fair. And would our being different mean we wouldn't have to be fair? Arguably our being different should mean it's even more important for us to be fair.

Besides, the criteria we use to assess similarity and difference aren't given in advance.

And I'm wondering what you think a principle is. Principles aren't given in advance. They're starting points that we choose to adopt.

[bahman]

Actually, I wanted to discuss one thing in this thread: We are similar therefore we have to be fair. The rest, good, evil, etc. is a matter of definition and it is relevant to the discussion but I put them elsewhere so we could focus the discussion about the principle of morality here.

I don't see why our being similar means we have to be fair.

Similarity means that I would do what you do if I am in your place. Fairness is not possible/possible if you cannot/can put yourself in my place (you simply don't know why I did this and not that so how could you judge me). Fairness is about judging the moral situation properly and acts rightly (good or evil depending on the situation) and that is not possible disregarding similarity. Similarity, therefore, fairness. Actually, I should have said that similarity is the moral principle because fairness follows from it.

And would our being different mean we wouldn't have to be fair?

We are different by fate only. That means that there should be a hierarchy (for example X is wiser than Y because of his fate, therefore, Y should consider X's recommendation into consideration).

Arguably our being different should mean it's even more important for us to be fair.

Difference, therefore, hierarchy (that is about the structure of our society). Similarity, therefore, fairness (that is about doing right).

Besides, the criteria we use to assess similarity and difference aren't given in advance.

We are similar in nature but different in fate.

And I'm wondering what you think a principle is. Principles aren't given in advance. They're starting points that we choose to adopt.

I agree with the bold part.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above are supported by researched findings.

So the problem here is this: just how are we saying that the third-person observables in question (the regions we see activated on the MRI, for example) are thoughts that they're not consciously aware of?

Note this very common scenario;

A: Why are you doing that?
B: Did I?

In this case, B's action is based on thoughts which he is 'unconscious of', i.e. not deliberately premeditated.

[Terrapin Station]

The above are supported by researched findings.

So the problem here is this: just how are we saying that the third-person observables in question (the regions we see activated on the MRI, for example) are thoughts that they're not consciously aware of?

Note this very common scenario;

A: Why are you doing that?
B: Did I?

In this case, B's action is based on thoughts which he is 'unconscious of', i.e. not deliberately premeditated.

Aside from that not fitting the standard definition of "action"---actions are intentional, what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the problem here is this: just how are we saying that the third-person observables in question (the regions we see activated on the MRI, for example) are thoughts that they're not consciously aware of?

Note this very common scenario;

A: Why are you doing that?
B: Did I?

In this case, B's action is based on thoughts which he is 'unconscious of', i.e. not deliberately premeditated.

Aside from that not fitting the standard definition of "action"---actions are intentional, what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?

As usual [many times] you simply trash out what is in your mind without checking the dictionary for the range of the meanings of a word.

See:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/action?s=t

[Terrapin Station]

Note this very common scenario;



In this case, B's action is based on thoughts which he is 'unconscious of', i.e. not deliberately premeditated.

Aside from that not fitting the standard definition of "action"---actions are intentional, what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?

As usual [many times] you simply trash out what is in your mind without checking the dictionary for the range of the meanings of a word.

See:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/action?s=t

Can we focus on "what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aside from that not fitting the standard definition of "action"---actions are intentional, what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?

As usual [many times] you simply trash out what is in your mind without checking the dictionary for the range of the meanings of a word.

See:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/action?s=t

Can we focus on "what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?"

There are many behavior that people do where they are unaware and was not consciously intended, e.g. slip of the tongue or certain actions not consciousness intended.

For example, some could have picked his nose in public and when someone asked why, the unaware person would say, "did I." Video evidence could proven to him, he did that.
In this case, whilst the person did not act intentionally, the 'thoughts' that represent and triggered such actions unconsciously would have been raised in his brain to activate his actions.

Note 'what is thought' is basically neural activities with some sort of origins & sources which he person is not aware of. Thoughts only become conscious thoughts and brought to awareness when they manifest in the specific part of the brain to be conscious thoughts.

[Terrapin Station]

As usual [many times] you simply trash out what is in your mind without checking the dictionary for the range of the meanings of a word.

See:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/action?s=t

Can we focus on "what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?"

There are many behavior that people do where they are unaware and was not consciously intended, e.g. slip of the tongue or certain actions not consciousness intended.

For example, some could have picked his nose in public and when someone asked why, the unaware person would say, "did I." Video evidence could proven to him, he did that.
In this case, whilst the person did not act intentionally, the 'thoughts' that represent and triggered such actions unconsciously would have been raised in his brain to activate his actions.

Note 'what is thought' is basically neural activities with some sort of origins & sources which he person is not aware of. Thoughts only become conscious thoughts and brought to awareness when they manifest in the specific part of the brain to be conscious thoughts.

Again, what I'm asking you is to provide EVIDENCE that there would be mental content that the people aren't aware of.

In order to address that, you'd have to say, "The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank with the evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can we focus on "what would be the evidence in this scenario of there being any thought behind the behavior in question?"

There are many behavior that people do where they are unaware and was not consciously intended, e.g. slip of the tongue or certain actions not consciousness intended.

For example, some could have picked his nose in public and when someone asked why, the unaware person would say, "did I." Video evidence could proven to him, he did that.
In this case, whilst the person did not act intentionally, the 'thoughts' that represent and triggered such actions unconsciously would have been raised in his brain to activate his actions.

Note 'what is thought' is basically neural activities with some sort of origins & sources which he person is not aware of. Thoughts only become conscious thoughts and brought to awareness when they manifest in the specific part of the brain to be conscious thoughts.

Again, what I'm asking you is to provide EVIDENCE that there would be mental content that the people aren't aware of.

In order to address that, you'd have to say, "The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank with the evidence.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is questioned why he picked his nose in public [empirical evidence] and he stated he was not aware he was doing it.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is drunk or for whatever reasons claimed he was not aware he raped the girl when DNA evidence proved he did rape the girl.

There are loads of examples where people claimed they are not aware of the actions [supported by mental content] they had done.