A guy in need of advice - girls who kiss a lot of random guys?

[searock]

If there's nothing wrong with it, why does barely anyone admit to engaging in it?

Because there are many judgmental pricks around.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats like someone saying I know cheating is wrong, I didnt plan it or intend for it to happen so im not taking responsibility for it. I did nothing wrong.. seriously?

Well, it's not the same, because if he says that he knows that cheating is wrong, then if he cheats he is doing something wrong according to him, so his intentions can't have been good.

[KingZ]

^ Carefully dodges my question.

[searock]

She would never admit anything.

Hey, that's not true!

We had the exact same discussion a couple months back and she never admitted she was wrong, even though the very source she cited disagreed with her. I lol'd heartily that night.

It didn't disagree with my premises... that the goodness or badness of a person is based on their intentions rather than their actions. This is also interesting: [url]http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/LiaoIntentionsAndMoralPermissibility.pdf[/url]

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like you're use the words "wrong" and "moral" but you don't actually have a solid definition for these things. Intentions and actions are different things, and both of them carry moral weight.

Just because an intention was good doesn't mean the action alone isn't subject to ethical evaluation. Do you agree?


What does this even mean?

Oh sorry, I only just read this. I meant that I'm speaking from my point of view, which is that a person's goodness or badness is based on their (subjective) intentions rather than their actions. So, for example, a pedophile that thinks there is nothing wrong with molesting children can be morally good, whereas a charity worker that is only doing it for pride and doesn't really care about the poor can be morally bad.

Actions can be right or wrong per se (and we would need to define these two adjectives), but the goodness or badness of a person is based on their intention.

Ethics and morals are two different things, IMO. Ethics is about what the majority of people believe, what a society believes as a general rule to be right or wrong. Morals are what each separate individual believes to be right or wrong.

So yeah, from an ethical point of view we can associate "right" and "wrong" to any particular action. For example, even if the pedophile thinks there is nothing wrong with molesting children, we as a whole society know that it is ethically wrong, and the majority of us also know as separate individuals that it is morally wrong according to us.

[KingZ]

I skimmed the paper. Nobody is arguing that the intention behind an act contributes to determining whether or not an act is permissible.

You, however, are using the language: "is based on their intentions rather than their actions", which is categorically false. In fact, in the very abstract of the paper you linked:

an agent's intention in performing an act can sometimes make an act that would otherwise have been permissible impermissible

You're acting like the intention alone is the holy fu​cking grail of determining permissibility.

[searock]

Yeah I find it funny that lots of scholars/thinkers believe that intentions actually determine whether an action is right or wrong. I don't think that intentions can make an action right or wrong. I think intentions only make a person good or bad.

As for rightness and wrongness of an action, we can give various definitions. For example:

something that hurts someone is wrong,
something that doesn't hurt someone is good.

or

something that the majority of people in a given society think is right is right in that given society,
something that the majority of people in a given society think is wrong is wrong in that given society.

- - - Updated - - -

In the case of people that sleep around, if their intentions are good (e.g. they don't think anyone is going to get hurt, they don't think anyone is going to get pregnant, they don't think anyone will get a disease, etc), they are good (they have integrity, self respect, all that). If their intentions are bad, they are bad regardless of the fact that they are promiscuous.

[KingZ]

I don't think that intentions can make an action right or wrong.

As for rightness and wrongness of an action, we can give various definitions. For example:

something that hurts someone is wrong,
something that doesn't hurt someone is good.

OH MY GOD! YES, I DID IT!



ahh.

- - - Updated - - -

In the case of people that sleep around, if their intentions are good (e.g. they don't think anyone is going to get hurt, they don't think anyone is going to get pregnant, they don't think anyone will get a disease, etc), they are good (they have integrity, self respect, all that).

Never mind. I retract my previous celebration.

[michelle23]

As much as I love you sea, you are a nutter

How can you say a murderer or paedofile has morals? now that is just disturbing.
And again we have gone way off topic. You keep changing the subject to try and prove a point and I dont even know what point you are trying to prove.

[searock]

Never mind. I retract my previous celebration.

Haha... well, you are saying that the rightness or wrongness of an action can make a person good or bad... I don't believe that, I believe that intentions make a person good or bad.

Oh well, at least we agree on the fact that actions are right/wrong regardless on the intentions of the person doing them .

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, um, thanks michelle?

[michelle23]

What does any of this got to do with promiscuity. I didnt even say it was morally wrong. I said its emotionally dysfunctional and you agreed with me like 5pages ago so wtf

[searock]

You're right michelle, I do think we agree, the two of us :-). Maybe you generalize a bit (for example I wouldn't say that *all* promiscuous people are dysfunctional, although probably most of them are, statistically), but we agree on the important parts.

I'm just debating ethics and morals cause I enjoy it .

[KingZ]

I don't believe that, I believe that intentions make a person good or bad.

The problem is that actions are either good or bad, period. Intentions can sometimes affect the situation, but mostly not. If a pedophile genuinely believes he isn't doing anything wrong (this is probably extremely rare), then he isn't mentally capable of understanding morality. Regarding promiscuity, just because their intentions are ok, doesn't line up with you condoning the behavior in every thread when this subject comes up.

You're right michelle, I do think we agree, the two of us :-).

Don't drag her into this. She was doing perfectly well just agreeing with me and thinking you're insane.

[searock]

The problem is that actions are either good or bad, period. Intentions can sometimes affect the situation, but mostly not. If a pedophile genuinely believes he isn't doing anything wrong (this is probably extremely rare), then he isn't mentally capable of understanding morality. Regarding promiscuity, just because their intentions are ok, doesn't line up with you condoning the behavior in every thread when this subject comes up.

Look, it all comes down to this: I think a person is good or bad based on whether their intentions are good or bad. Good intentions - good person, bad intentions - bad person.

Actions can be right or wrong and the rightness and wrongness of actions can be defined as we agreed to do (right = doesn't hurt anyone, wrong = hurts someone).

So, for example: if someone does something wrong with good intentions, they are a good person. If someone does something right with bad intentions, they are a bad person. The actions per se are still wrong and right respectively.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, in common speech, I'm not going to bother with the distinction. I'm just going to say "it's wrong, he's an asshole!" and what I will actually mean is "what he did is wrong because it hurt someone, and he's an asshole because I even if his intentions were good (which I don't necessarily think they were), I still don't like him because he has different moral values than mine and those of the majority!"

So in common speech I would probably call a cheater, a murderer and a pedophile "assholes", and I wouldn't give a sh*t about their intentions.

[KingZ]

See, this is the second time that you've suggested that statistically, you can assume the worst with these promiscuous people. Either they're dysfunctional, or they're players who don't care about the feelings of those they sleep with, and so on.

What Confused is doing is no different. Honestly, I wouldn't want to, either. I don't want to waste my time trying to find out if some woman I just started dating is part of the minority that can sleep with (or kiss or whatever) 500 men without being seriously fu​cked up.

[michelle23]

But we were never debating their intentions to begin with. We were debating the actions and we all agree that casual sex hurts people so what is the problem?

I agree good people do bad things and that doesnt always mean they are a shitty person but it doesnt change the fact that they hurt someone and should take responsibility for it.

Your saying there shouldnt be any consequences if there intentions were good. I mean id love to castrate all the rapists in the world but if I did-i would still end up in prison..

[KingZ]

So in common speech I would probably call a cheater, a murderer and a pedophile "assholes", and I wouldn't give a sh*t about their intentions.

Yep, and by your own pissiness a few pages ago, that makes you a judgmental prick.