well, I accept the Kantian legality vs morality distinction in ethical theory
our main explanandum is not legality (rightness & wrongness) but morality (moral goodness & moral evil)
an action can be "right" (in external conformity with moral duty) yet - because the maxim or the motive behind it is not a morally good maxim or motive - fail to be a moral / morally good action
Well, I don't think that distinction exists. However, even if it does, I don't care. I care about what I have most reason to do. Do you accept that a person has most reason to save a life of someone else in the case you stipulated?
if by "most reason to do" you mean duty to do, then ofc in a way that's what I care about
... in the case I stipulated your duty is indeed to save a life
I however don't say of ACTIONS that they are moral / morally good just because there is external compliance with duty (in this case, just because a life got saved)
it seems to me the maxim / motive behind the action makes all the difference to its morality
we speak of virtuous (morally good) actions the same as we speak of virtuous (morally good) human beings / moral agents... it's not like the virtue judgement targets only "the agent"
I liked this
Thanks!
case:
you save someone from drowning, but do so merely out of the hope of being paid for it
is that a moral / morally good action?
I say no
Well, you're not virtuous, but the action is good.
good in what sense?
beneficial yes
I'd even call it "right"
but I'd never call it moral or morally good
Well then I don't know what you mean by moral if you aren't talking about right. This dispute feels purely semantic.
well, I accept the Kantian legality vs morality distinction in ethical theory
our main explanandum is not legality (rightness & wrongness) but morality (moral goodness & moral evil)
an action can be "right" (in external conformity with moral duty) yet - because the maxim or the motive behind it is not a morally good maxim or motive - fail to be a moral / morally good action
what do you make of that distinction?
Well, I don't think that distinction exists. However, even if it does, I don't care. I care about what I have most reason to do. Do you accept that a person has most reason to save a life of someone else in the case you stipulated?
why do you reject the distinction?
if by "most reason to do" you mean duty to do, then ofc in a way that's what I care about
... in the case I stipulated your duty is indeed to save a life
I however don't say of ACTIONS that they are moral / morally good just because there is external compliance with duty (in this case, just because a life got saved)
it seems to me the maxim / motive behind the action makes all the difference to its morality
we speak of virtuous (morally good) actions the same as we speak of virtuous (morally good) human beings / moral agents... it's not like the virtue judgement targets only "the agent"