I thought this was what you mean by ceasing the interaction to make it so there are no future interactions.
Not necessarily. Although what I said ends up not really supporting my point so let's pretend it never happened.
I don't see any agreements. I just want a job and you can give me a job.
There was an unspoken agreement. It is understood that if you applied for a job and were not the most qualified, you would not get the job.
By the way, I don't see any unfairness personally, but it seems to me that the criterion for unfairness that you outlined would apply to this situation. I thought your criterion was "putting someone in a undesirable situation" - so if something goes against someone's wishes, clearly they are in an undesirable situation.
It's not simply as you stated. The entire statement is: A motive is immoral if it, without just cause, includes intentionally acting on a subject in a way that goes against the interests of that subject.
In the example, while it is undesirable for you to not be hired, it would be even more undesirable if you were not allowed to apply in the first place. If the recruiter was not allowed to reject applicants, he would not open it to the public. Therefore, it is to both of your interests to allow the recruiter to reject applicants but open recruitment to the public.
The moral system doesn't evaluate scenarios separately. The big picture must be considered, else pushing someone aside to save his life would be considered immoral.
It's difficult to determine intentions. The homosexual couple might be doing it to annoy the religious person, or they might just being doing it because they want to.
Yes, but determining someone's motive is different from determining the morality of a motive. The former has to do with the practical application of an ethical system and the latter has to do with the philosophy of one.
