Discussion of Good and Bad & Morals

[Pacing Tape]

I think Virtue Ethics would be the real alternative. Most of this comes from one partially-remembered philosophy class, so I could be wrong, but Deontology and Consequencialism both focus on the actions an agent takes (or technically the "results" of such an action, but in this example they're the same thing), where Virtue Ethics instead focuses on the internal character of an agent.

This is actually a very insightful take on ethical theories. I hadn't thought about it but almost all of the modes of ethics I'm familiar with, even ones that aren't relevant here like Libertarianism and Utilitarianism, are reactionary. Do you know of any other modes of ethics that follow the same "internal character" structure?

 

[stonehead]

This is actually a very insightful take on ethical theories. I hadn't thought about it but almost all of the modes of ethics I'm familiar with, even ones that aren't relevant here like Libertarianism and Utilitarianism, are reactionary. Do you know of any other modes of ethics that follow the same "internal character" structure?

I'm not actually super familiar with the different varieties of virtue ethics. I know the most famous is Aristotelianism, this video summarizes it better than I could

 

[LiraTirsoCaduceo]

Morally superior is a very strong wording.
A being who is naturally good, and all it does is good, and it can not be evil. That's an aspect of Divinity, and I would not say a Divine being is morally inferior to a human because the human does good even though it takes him great effort, while the Divine does good naturally.
When it comes to action, the act itself matters much more than the intent behind the act, however intention can lead to somewhat questionable acts. For example, the typical millionaire who engages in philanthropy and makes a show of it. Think Mr. Beast using his fortune to heal people for views. I don't think the show he makes of it is good. But it's an act, making a show of charity, that's the problem here rather than the intent.

Going back to the original question, I think if the action and the result of the action are the exact same, then no one is better than the other. Although obviously the actions of lad 2 would be commendable, because it takes him greater restrain and discipline, but I think he would eventually just become naturally good. Lad 1, who does good because it's in his nature to do good, is the future of Lad 2.