Thomas wrote:Mr. Rich is acting morally, because the purpose of the dollar is to make Mr. Rags happy. Nobody knows what makes Mr. Rags happy as well as Mr. Rags does. His judgment in the matter may well be wrong, but then again, so may Mr. Rich's. Therefore, Mr. Rich is doing the right thing by giving Mr. Rags the dollar and letting Mr. Rags decide what to do with it.
True, Rich doesn't direct Rags to use the dollar in any particular fashion, so to that extent Rags decides what he will do with the money. But Rich is reasonably confident that Rags will use it to buy alcohol. And while you presume that Rich's dollar will make Rags happy, Rich can only be confident that the dollar will make Rags
drunk -- a state that we can assume is
desired by Rags, whether or not it will actually make him happy. So, given Rich's reasonable belief, is it right for him to give the money to Rags?
JLNobody wrote:Joe, it seems to me that since we cannot know with certainty what the long-term consequences of our actions may be (a good consequence may even make possible a worse consequence in the future which may in turn make possible another good one, ad infinitum), we must give, in our moralogical considerations, primacy to the intention of the act. I think that Mr. Rich may give to Mr. Rags aid for the ease of his pain out of a sincere and spontaneous compassion without self-consciousness reference to moral principles.
No, we cannot foresee anything with certainty, but then morality never insists upon that degree of precognition. Instead, we rely upon foreseeability as our standard. Thus, if I fire a gun into a crowd, my action is judged to be morally condemnable, even if I am not aiming at anyone in particular, since it is foreseeable that I
might shoot someone. In the same fashion, Rich can reasonably foresee that his dollar will go to buy alcohol for Rags. He cannot be absolutely certain, but then he need only be
reasonably certain in order to judge the morality of his act.