We have been discussing the effect that religion has on the moral decisions the religious often make in regard to animals. Specifically, I am thinking of the appeals to scripture used to defend vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. This has left a nagging question behind:
Two people convert to a vegan lifestyle, and one does not. The first (we'll call her Elisha) converted to veganism because she believes it wrong to kill an animal to provide humans with non-essentials such as meat in our diet and leather gloves on our hands. The second (we'll call her Kim) converts to be a vegan because there is, in her opinion, enough evidence in the scriptures to demonstrate that it was god's plan. The third, who did not convert, is only relevant in her existence and shall therefore go nameless. My question is, is there a moral difference between the two? Both Elisha and Kim have done the right thing but only one for the (dare I say so) right reason. It would seem that both Elisha and Kim are morally superior to she-who-shall-not-be-named, but is Elisha superior, morally, to Kim? Where lies this hierarchy of morality?
Question: Does the reason for committing the right act morally matter?
I have responded to your post
ReplyDeleteOutside of utilitarianism (with the possible exception of "motive utilitarianism"), yes. But notice: even for the utilitarian, intentions matter when assessing the morality of the agents themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's very helpful to try to figure out who is morally superior. We surely want to know whose reasons are epistemically better, because we all want to plan our lives according to the best and most comprehensive rational considerations available. Like the utilitarians in this instance, I'm mainly interested not in moral purity, but the healthiest outcome all around.
ReplyDeleteUnless we could consider the intent an aspect of the outcome itself. An ill, or at least inferior, intent may engender and propagate such thinking in the future, so the best possible outcome may necessitate correct intent.
ReplyDelete