Thought experiment I came up with - Morality and Epistemology

[CentaurJF]

This is a thought experiment i came up. I was inspired by Edmund Gettier, although it is a different realm of knowledge. Let me just mention i am finishing a degree in philosophy as we speak, so i know most of the jargon and names (i hope you do too but i actually LIKE getting non philosophers ideas too). I am trying to get this published, so all criticism is welcomed.

There are two families that live in Nowheresville; the Jones family and the Peters family. The Jones family is rich, and the Peters family is poor. No one in the town of Nowheresville is aware that Mr. Jones (head of household Jones) strongly dislikes Mr. Peters (head of household Peters).

The Peters family is about to become homeless and starts begging for money of the streets, and the people of Nowheresville give here and there, but it is not enough to get them back on their feet. Mr. Jones sees this and becomes furious, so he gives Mr. Peters enough money to get back on his feet, although he doesn't want to. He gives Mr. Peters the money because he wanted to get him off of his street and to stop begging.

The people of Nowheresville see what Jones did and they thank him dearly for it, while Mr. Jones accepts all of the attention. Mr. Jones is awarded the key to the city and benefits from this greatly, furthering his career in politics. Keep in mind, he still dislikes the Peters family.

Was Jones's act a good or bad act?

There are a couple of ways to answer this that i have come up with for both sides (good and bad) -

Bad person because he did it only to better himself. He doesnt care about the Peters family.

Good person because he is perceived as a good person from everyone else, regardless of his intentions, and therefore makes him good.

And my answer - Jones is a good person because his morals actually overrode his knowledge, although even Mr. Jones was not even aware of it.

 

[GwJ]

I don't think what Mr. Jones did has much of an impact either way. He gave Peters money to get him out of his face. He didn't do it out of malevolence or benevolence.

 

[CentaurJF]

I don't think what Mr. Jones did has much of an impact either way. He gave Peters money to get him out of his face. He didn't do it out of malevolence or benevolence.

So he would be good then from what i understand, based on the perception from others. It certainly has an impact, considering he helped this family out of poverty.

Are you saying that his action is outside of morality? Please elaborate.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Mr. Jones is a businessman who saw Mr. Peter was annoying him by being on the street and invested in him taking a calculated risk that by giving him money he would be less of an annoyance in his life by being off the street than on it. How he was perceived or how Mr. Peter utilized the money has no value in determining whether Mr. Jones is a 'good'/'bad' person since his originating motive was to simply get Mr. Peter to leave and he used a dispensable resource (the money he had) in order to effect an action (getting Mr. Peter to **** off) much like you would use such money to buy food or clothing.

 

[GwJ]

So he would be good then from what i understand, based on the perception from others. It certainly has an impact, considering he helped this family out of poverty.

Are you saying that his action is outside of morality? Please elaborate.

I'm saying his action wasn't one based in morality. What he did was just as immoral or moral as solving a math equation. He didn't anything because he felt something was right or wrong. He wanted them out of his face and that's how he did it.

 

[CentaurJF]

Mr. Jones is a businessman who saw Mr. Peter was annoying him by being on the street and invested in him taking a calculated risk that by giving him money he would be less of an annoyance in his life by being off the street than on it. How he was perceived or how Mr. Peter utilized the money has no value in determining whether Mr. Jones is a 'good'/'bad' person since his originating motive was to simply get Mr. Peter to leave and he used a dispensable resource (the money he had) in order to effect an action (getting Mr. Peter to **** off) much like you would use such money to buy food or clothing.

You both are saying basically the same thing, and I can see what you are saying, but even i am not convinced by what Mr. Jones did is business like. When you think of humans in the state of nature (depending on how you view it), im sure this can actually factor into the equation. Now lets say that Mr. Jones wasnt very rich, would it then become a moral (or sacrificial) act? If so then it must the same regardless of money. Also, he did not make any investments, he was benefited from it outside of his power, but then took advantage of it, so if he didnt take advantage of it, would that make it any better?

How do you view the state of nature (even sub conscious)? I believe Mr. Jones acted in a good way, unknown to even himself. I tend to give humans the benefit of the doubt as Aristotle would in such a case, saying they are naturally good and purposeful human beings. Since Mr. Jones helped the state in such a way, and acted according to virtue ethics, he did a good act.

 

[GwJ]

It doesn't matter if Mr. Jones is rich or not. Mr. Jones did not give Mr. Peter money because he wanted to help him and he did not give him money to do some kind of harm. Mr. Jones just didn't like seeing Mr. Peter where he was and giving money was a way to move him. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a moral-relevant action.

 

[CentaurJF]

It doesn't matter if Mr. Jones is rich or not. Mr. Jones did not give Mr. Peter money because he wanted to help him and he did not give him money to do some kind of harm. Mr. Jones just didn't like seeing Mr. Peter where he was and giving money was a way to move him. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a moral-relevant action.

What im getting at is that even though Jones had no intention to help him, he still did. Do you call it luck? Its certainly a moral act, even if Jones doesnt know it is. Factor in everyones perception of Jones also, even Peters. If the queston is unclear, help me improve on it please. Maybe the question should be, "Was's Jones act a good or bad act?"

Have you ever read Edmund Gettiers counter examples? It is something similar to this.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Bad person because he did it only to better himself. He doesnt care about the Peters family.

Insofar as the scenario represents Jones as a person, he's not great. He acts from self-interest while faking altruism. As a faker he's likely to have a deceptive or manipulative personality. His indifference towards the poor will manifest itself in harmful actions when convenient for him, since the good results were merely incidental to his actions, instrumental in removing a nuisance.

 

[Thor]

I state this somewhat facetiously: Mr. Jones is a capitalist - he does what thinks will give him the most profit (getting Peters out of his face) and reaps the rewards, intended and unintended (Peters is not in his face, he gets praised). Everyone ends up benefitting via "The Invisible Hand" of the market.

Getting serious now...

Whether his act is moral depends entirely on whether one thinks morals or actions matter - while it is certain that Mr. Jones had questionable reasoning, it's also certain that his finished product was good. It is then simply a question of if actions matter more than intentions - the flip side would be if Peters was begging for CPR, and Jones, caring for Peters, tries to give it but kills him, and Peters would've survived without it, is Jones a good person? Most would answer "Yes, he's just bad at CPR/helping", but it's interesting that the flipside is less clear-cut. But this is about Jones, not his sole act...

I don't think Mr. Jones is a good person, at least in regard to his feelings toward Peters (although if he had nothing but goodwill toward everyone else on the planet, hating one person can hardly make you a bad person), but I think he committed a good act, in the way that I don't think one's heart has to be in the right place for them to do good (Ex: many only volunteer to put it on an application, but it's undeniable they did good deeds volunteering - that doesn't make them a good person for volunteering their time, it just means they conducted a cost-benefit analysis and decided the action that benefited them most also happened to be an action that was beneficial to other people as well, as Jones did here.)

 

[GwJ]

If you try to poison somebody with a chemical concoction you made which ends up actually curing their cancer, is what you did good? Do intentions matter?

 

[CentaurJF]

If you try to poison somebody with a chemical concoction you made which ends up actually curing their cancer, is what you did good? Do intentions matter?

I think the intentions matter, but im not sure what Mr. Jones's intentions were. Maybe he didnt realize what he was doing was right, but did it because his morals told him to (unknowningly). Its tricky because he didnt intend to gain from this. He just wanted to see Peters off the streets not begging.

I state this somewhat facetiously: Mr. Jones is a capitalist - he does what thinks will give him the most profit (getting Peters out of his face) and reaps the rewards, intended and unintended (Peters is not in his face, he gets praised). Everyone ends up benefitting via "The Invisible Hand" of the market.

As said before, he didnt intend to gain from this. If he did, then it would automatically be down right wrong. As the author of this, i made sure to separate the two, in order to make it more interesting

Insofar as the scenario represents Jones as a person, he's not great. He acts from self-interest while faking altruism. As a faker he's likely to have a deceptive or manipulative personality. His indifference towards the poor will manifest itself in harmful actions when convenient for him, since the good results were merely incidental to his actions, instrumental in removing a nuisance.

I may have worded it trickily because i dont know myself if Jones dislikes all "lower class" people. He may have disliked Peters for other reasons too. I will make a note on that. If that is the case, consider this:

A totally racist (against blacks) person walks by and sees a black man lying on the floor begging for help (wounded). I can confidently say that he would help this guy out. He may not like him at all, but something will tell him not to walk away, and as you said, if he did, he would feel guilty in the end.

 

[GwJ]

I think the intentions matter, but im not sure what Mr. Jones's intentions were. Maybe he didnt realize what he was doing was right, but did it because his morals told him to (unknowningly). Its tricky because he didnt intend to gain from this. He just wanted to see Peters off the streets not begging.

You already told us his intentions:

He gives Mr. Peters the money because he wanted to get him off of his street and leave him alone because he dislikes him that much.

 

[CentaurJF]

You already told us his intentions:

Im not sure that defines his intentions. When i read that out of context, it actually makes his act look much better. Even if he dislikes him, he still did the right thing. Im going to now rephrase some parts of this experiment:


There are two families that live in Nowheresville; the Jones family and the Peters family. The Jones family is rich, and the Peters family is poor. No one in the town of Nowheresville is aware that Mr. Jones (head of household Jones) strongly dislikes Mr. Peters (head of household Peters).

The Peters family is about to become homeless and starts begging for money of the streets, and the people of Nowheresville give here and there, but it is not enough to get them back on their feet. Mr. Jones sees this and becomes furious, so he gives Mr. Peters enough money to get back on his feet, although he doesn't want to. He gives Mr. Peters the money because he wanted to get him off of his street and stop begging.

The people of Nowheresville see what Jones did and they thank him dearly for it, while Mr. Jones accepts all of the attention. Mr. Jones is awarded the key to the city and benefits from this greatly, furthering his career in politics. Keep in mind, he still dislikes the Peters family.

Was Jones's act a good or bad act?

 

[GwJ]

It is now too ambiguous to answer.

He gives Mr. Peters the money because he wanted to get him off of his street and stop begging.

What about Mr. Peters begging makes Mr. Jones give him money? Initially, it was because Mr. Jones didn't like Mr. Peters and didn't want to see him, so he gave him money to get him out of his face. I can't tell his intentions anymore and thus I cannot answer.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

If you try to poison somebody with a chemical concoction you made which ends up actually curing their cancer, is what you did good? Do intentions matter?

Intentions matter because they have consequences. The intent to poison is bad because it typically results in poisoning. But the combination of this intent plus mistaken beliefs about poisonous substances can have good results which counterbalance some of the bad.

 

[Thor]

he didnt intend to gain from this

Yeah he did. A gain is a reason to do something - he saw a reason get Peters off the street (he hated him), and that was reward enough - he looked to spend money to profit himself (not dealing with Peters), and when the idea took off (he was seen as a good person), he reaped the [unintended] benefits.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that I view this as a gain, and you don't.

 

[GwJ]

Intentions matter because they have consequences. The intent to poison is bad because it typically results in poisoning. But the combination of this intent plus mistaken beliefs about poisonous substances can have good results which counterbalance some of the bad.

The intent to poison isn't bad because it usually actually poisons. The intent is bad because the intent is to harm somebody (assuming harming somebody is bad). As far as I'm concerned, intending to poison somebody is just as bad regardless of whether the poison works. If it doesn't work, I'd say I'm more willing to forgive, but as a third party, I don't think it makes it any less wrong.

 

[CentaurJF]

It is now too ambiguous to answer.



What about Mr. Peters begging makes Mr. Jones give him money? Initially, it was because Mr. Jones didn't like Mr. Peters and didn't want to see him, so he gave him money to get him out of his face. I can't tell his intentions anymore and thus I cannot answer.

Thats the point, i dont know his intentions. i dont want anyone to assume his intentions. explain what you mean please. I dont think that matters very much, ambiguity is part of this crazy thing.

Yeah he did. A gain is a reason to do something - he saw a reason get Peters off the street (he hated him), and that was reward enough - he looked to spend money to profit himself (not dealing with Peters), and when the idea took off (he was seen as a good person), he reaped the [unintended] benefits.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that I view this as a gain, and you don't.

Its stipulated that he didnt do it for a gain. He had no intention to gain from this.

Intentions matter because they have consequences. The intent to poison is bad because it typically results in poisoning. But the combination of this intent plus mistaken beliefs about poisonous substances can have good results which counterbalance some of the bad.

Stickin to your guns i see. Although he wanted to poison him, he didnt, and therefore the consequences were actually good. This happens a lot in the medical field actually.

 

[GwJ]

Thats the point, i dont know his intentions. i dont want anyone to assume his intentions. explain what you mean please. I dont think that matters very much, ambiguity is part of this crazy thing.

That's the thing though; you made his intentions clear enough right off the bat. Even without the intention being clear, that makes a judgment too difficult to make then.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

The intent to poison isn't bad because it usually actually poisons. The intent is bad because the intent is to harm somebody (assuming harming somebody is bad).

The intent to harm somebody is bad because it tends to result in actual harm.

As far as I'm concerned, intending to poison somebody is just as bad regardless of whether the poison works. If it doesn't work, I'd say I'm more willing to forgive, but as a third party, I don't think it makes it any less wrong.

Surely it is less bad for a fool to have the intent to poison rather than, say, an expert chemist. This is a distinct issue from forgiveness, punishment, blame, etc. The fool and the expert are equally blameworthy but the expert is more important.

 

[Thor]

There are two families that live in Nowheresville; the Jones family and the Peters family. The Jones family is rich, and the Peters family is poor. No one in the town of Nowheresville is aware that Mr. Jones (head of household Jones) strongly dislikes Mr. Peters (head of household Peters).

The Peters family is about to become homeless and starts begging for money of the streets, and the people of Nowheresville give here and there, but it is not enough to get them back on their feet. Mr. Jones sees this and becomes furious, so he gives Mr. Peters enough money to get back on his feet, although he doesn't want to. He gives Mr. Peters the money because he wanted to get him off of his street and to stop begging.

Its stipulated that he didnt do it for a gain. He had no intention to gain from this.

My entire point is that I view this as a gain from Jones perspective. Jones feels he gains something by not having to deal with Mr. Peters begging on the street. You've narrowly defined what a gain is, but this definition doesn't make sense in the context of his actions. If I donate to someone because it means they'll leave me alone and I won't see their ugly face, I made the donation for a personal gain, no matter how much it looks to someone else like I did it to be a good person or whatever. Jones didn't intend to gain from this in any way BESIDE not having to see Peters begging on the street, is what I've been trying to say all along.

 

[GwJ]

The intent to harm somebody is bad because it tends to result in actual harm.

Surely it is less bad for a fool to have the intent to poison rather than, say, an expert chemist. This is a distinct issue from forgiveness, punishment, blame, etc. The fool and the expert are equally blameworthy but the expert is more important.

I disagree. Wrong intent is not wrong because an action carried out with the intent usually results in the intended action. Regardless of how probable the action was, just the fact that an action was carried out with the intent of something is enough to make a judgment regardless of if it worked or not.

If the fool and the expert had exactly the same intent, they're equally blameworthy and equally wrong.

 

[Calibrate]

Since you wanted criticism:

I think your thought experiment is very generic for some reason, and it brings no real comparison of values and morals in to consideration. I feel as it was thought up in two minutes.
However, I found one thing you mentioned to be very interesting, which could create a new question.
"Jones is a good person because his morals actually overrode his knowledge, although even Mr. Jones was not even aware of it."

A good experiment regarding if people should be considered good whilst not being aware of what they are doing (when it comes to the deeper meanings). Can a guy be considered a hero, because he subconsciously helped someone?


And to answer the original question: Yes, it was a good act. No matter his intention, in the end his intention made it no different to Jones. The money was all he needed, not pity. And to the person (GwJ) who wrote the following:
"If you try to poison somebody with a chemical concoction you made which ends up actually curing their cancer, is what you did good? Do intentions matter?"

Yes, intentions matter. For the person commiting the act! Trying to poison someone is obviously the same as trying to murder someone.

GwJ's infamous poisoning

Intention: Bad (poisoning to kill).
1: Guy dies, you feel you served some justice.
2: Guy has no cancer anymore, you feel stupid.

Intention: Good (posioning for a good reason, maybe you're a stupid little kid who thinks poison can make people live longer)
1: Guy dies, you feel bad, but you "know" you tried saving him.
2: Guy has no cancer anymore, you feel awesome.

The person who poisons someone will most likely feel better if he had good intentions, but the person who gets poisoned either dies or survives in each case.
Good and bad is just something us humans have made up. And following the general criteria to achieve something good (let's say what the majority of people would consider a good act), yes, your intentions can cause what you did to be considered good or bad.

Jones vs Peters

Intention: Good (giving money because he feels pity).
One outcome: Peters receives the money, and Jones is happy for him

Intention: Bad (giving money because he doesn't want him to keep begging on his street).
One outcome: Peters receives the money, and Jones is still feeling hateful towards him. Jones is considered a hero.

No explanation needed.


In both cases, the intentions don't matter to the affected person, but they create different feelings for the people who commited the acts.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I disagree. Wrong intent is not wrong because an action carried out with the intent usually results in the intended action. Regardless of how probable the action was, just the fact that an action was carried out with the intent of something is enough to make a judgment regardless of if it worked or not.

If the fool and the expert had exactly the same intent, they're equally blameworthy and equally wrong.

We agree that any choice made with malicious intent merits judgment and blame. But any reasonable moral theory needs to say that things go better for the 'victim' when this poisoning attempt cures cancer, that the poisoning attempt is partly responsible for this good result. Consequentialists (myself included) go on to say that administering the 'poison' in this case was morally right/good/correct even though the poisoner didn't know it - he performed a morally good action by accident. We agree that his choice/action was morally bad given what he knew, which is why he deserves blame.

 

[GwJ]

What if you didn't know the outcome? Instead, how about we changed the scenario to a guy trying to poison somebody, but he left before the poison could have taken effect. Was he just probably doing something bad?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Yes, his action is "only probably" bad since we can't be absolutely certain. A poisoning attempt is bad except in very unusual circumstances. In any case we can still say that it's bad *given what he knew*.

 

[GwJ]

That's where we differ. If the intent is to harm, then that is enough to call the action bad. Even if the poison heals somebody, I still think it's wrong.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Seems to me that it doesn't matter whether we call an action "wrong", as long as we are equally prepared to blame and punish for its malicious intent and be happy that it accidentally backfired.