Summary

Applying these rules to the 78 logically coherent actions produces 10 moral rankings. These rankings are outlined below, in order of decreasing morality.

Moral Actions (12 actions, Ranked 1 – 4)
Nonmoral Actions (26 actions, Ranked 5-8)
Immoral Actions (40 actions, Ranked 9 & 10)

Moral Ranking:

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to construct a set of rules to analyze complex moral actions, taking into account intentions, means, consequences, and outside influences in the determination of an overall moral value. 78 logically coherent actions, based on the possible combinations of the atomic elements of a compound action, were analyzed through these rules and ranked according to moral value. The result was not entirely Intentionalist (where only intentions matter) or Consequentialist (where only consequences matter), but a combination, where other factors and responsibilities were a factor.

This paper leaves open many questions including: “What constitutes a simple moral act?” “What level of forethought should be considered reasonable?” “To what degree should we factor related consequences in judging the outcome of an action?” These questions were beyond the scope of this paper. The rules designed here are such that answers to the above questions would not invalidate them, but rather allow these rules to be incorporated into a larger moral framework.

Defining the Rules

The 144 actions have been constructed by the blind and mindless process of considering all possible combinations of the available components. It is necessary to exclude some of these due to incoherence.

Two rules of logic are established to do this:

Rules of Logic

Rule of Logic 1: If misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, the moral value of the outcome will be the same as of the intent.

Whenever the moral value of an outcome differs from the moral value of the intent, there must be some cause. We have grouped all causes into the three categories of: misjudgment, neglect, chance. If these aren’t factors affecting the outcome of an action, then the moral value of that action cannot have been changed from the moral value of the intentions.

There are 12 violations of this rule.

Rule of Logic 2: Only chance can influence the outcome of an action with forethought.

As previously stated, forethought is defined as a process by which any resulting influence due to misjudgment and neglect are instead classified as influence due to chance. Alternatively, this can be restated that misjudgment and neglect are necessarily due to lack of sufficient forethought. In either case, the existence of forethought precludes the influence of misjudgment and neglect.

There are 54 violations of this rule.

The Rules of Judgment

Factoring out the logically incoherent actions leaves 78.

For those the following rules of Judgment are devised:

Rule 1: Actions with immoral intentions are judged as immoral.

Given the intended purpose of establishing a guideline for behavior, immoral actions will result in immoral outcomes except when affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. None of those factors are reliable in preventing immoral intentions from being realized. As such, all actions with immoral intentions should be judged as immoral, regardless of outcome.

There are 26 applications of this rule.

Rule 2: Actions where misjudgment, neglect, and chance do not factor are judged according to their intent and outcome, both being of the same moral value.

In accordance with Rule of Logic 1, when misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, then the outcome will invariable have the same moral value as the intentions. Such actions are to be judged in accordance with that moral value.

There are 4 applications of this rule.

Rule 3: Actions with forethought affected by chance are judged according to their intent.

As defined, forethought eliminates the effect of misjudgment and neglect. While elements of chance can be reduced, in quantity and magnitude, to a degree, they cannot be reliably eliminated. Since elements of chance are unpredictable and uncontrollable (predicted and controlled elements of chance would have been eliminated through adequate forethought), the actors should not be reasonable held responsible for them. Such actions are judged according to their intentions, regardless of outcome.

There are 6 applications of this rule.

Rule 4: Actions without forethought affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance are judged according to their intent or outcome, whichever is of least moral value.

When misjudgment and neglect are factors, they are necessarily a result of lack of forethought on the part of the actor, thus making him or her accountable. When chance is a factor in such situations, it is impossible to determine if such chance was unavoidable, since no forethought was taken to make that determination. In either case, the morality of such actions is determined by their outcome or intentions, whichever is least. This ensures that actors are not rewarded for actions which are accidentally made more moral, but held responsible for actions which are accidentally made less moral since the actor neglected to take reasonable precautions against such an occurrence.

There are 42 applications of this rule. 

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

To Be Continued With ....

Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.
 

This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.

Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or  immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.
Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.