Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

Objection and replies: The essentials. The Phantom: Objections to last Round Arguments on moral free-will, non-responsibility and justification were not taken account. My representation of Consequence theory is backed by an Authoritative source. http://www.scribd.com...... Motivist ethical theory: "The rightness or wrongness of an action depends upon the motive from which the act was done." Consequence theory: "The rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely upon the effects that the action has" The Fool: Replies Arguments on moral free-will, non-responsibility and justification were not taken account. The Fool: The approach I took concerning Phantoms argument was deriving the formal and necessary premises which his informal version depended on, which I felt in the end summarizes into the following propositions. The Fools Summarised formal version of Phantoms argument. 2nd summary. P1 if consequence theory is true it would not be able to account for Good actions/people or Bad actions/people when opposite and inadvertent consequences happen to arise. P2 these are indispensible considerations that need to be taken account of in a moral theory C1 Therefore it should not be taken as a serious moral theory.” The Fool: I hope I had made it clear enough that I was ready to account for anything I missed out on in the next round, and as promised I will address his concerns. A. moral free-will, non-responsibility , justification - “For, moral knowledge and awareness is what gives us moral free-will” -Non-responsibility is based on the notion that people or their action can be deemed Good or bad regardless if they have acted out of responsibility or not. -Will, justification is inherent in the moral knowledge and intentionality already. The Fool: I felt and I still do feel that these factors where taken account in the first summary: “P1 that peoples actions with good intention/knowledge may turn out to have bad consequences.” “P2 that peoples actions with Bad intention/knowledge may turn out to have Good consequences.” C1 Thus according to consequence theory they would be deemed bad action and may even bad people. C2 But according to consequence theory there action are good and we may even attribute these people as Good people. Moral free-will: was taken into account by moral knowledge(P1 &P2) Non-responsibility were taken in to account by the (C1&C2) Justification: being inherent in the combination of intention and knowledge of a moral decision. ((P1 &P2) (C1&C2)) I hope I have satisfied and addressed Phantoms concerns. 2nd set of Replies. On the strawman Phantoms representation of Consequence theory and motivismis backed by an Authoritative source. http://www.scribd.com...... Motivist ethical theory: "The rightness or wrongness of an action depends upon the motive from which the act was done." Consequence theory: "The rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely upon the effects that the action has" The Fool: The problems with both these representations is that they are both ridiculously insufficient on their own. I am assuming that they are for a Beginners course on philosophy, which is just to lead you in to a more complex understanding of moral theory in later years. The truth is no body in their right mind would indorse either or as stated Let’s say Motivism is true as defined. Then even Hitler would be morally correct as long as he felt that it was in the best intention for humanity. Mind you he really did think that. The rest of phantom argument goes beyond his definition. Thus I my argument holds: The Idea in consequentialism is that the most important calculation in moral decision is to take into account Consequence as part of the motive and knowledge base of the action. Not that the actual outcome post affect can go back in time and be the judge of the action or agent. Obviously this this would be absurd for the many intelligent proponent of consequentialism. IF it was that simple not body would hold this position. Its most more complicated than that. http://en.wikipedia.org... Consequentialims Has so many facet that the definition here hardy captures it at all.