Is it ever right to follow a moral rule if you *know* that the net consequences will be negative? If so, why?

Answer 1

Yes... sometimes a leap of faith takes courage; I have recently had to take a leap; and though its something that most people would consider a bad decision, I knew it was what I felt I needed to do... even that I was called to, if that makes sense.

Answer 2

It depends on the "rule" and the consequences. Sometimes, something that seems negative in the short term will turn out to be ok in the long term.

Forget rules and absolutes, those are for children who need limitations and boundaries. Honor what you know in your heart to be the right thing to do - that is the moral choice.

Answer 3

The definition of morally right is that the net consequences are positive. Of course, you could have something that you think have a net positive consequence that someone else thinks is a net negative. Morals are just value judgments. There's no absolute standard for any of them.

Answer 4

Yes. Even in the event of a moral ideal resulting in negative consequences, by default the consequences of the oposite, amoral ideal will by definition ultimately be of even greater negativity.

The lesser of two evils and all that.

Answer 5

I'm always a pragmatist and a utilitarian-while I have a sense of moral values I always advocate the course of action that does the most good to the greatest number of people, even if that means commiting an immoral act.

Answer 6

What is moral to one, may not be moral to another. This is kind of a subjective term. So you see it in one way and stick to it while others are opposed. Stick to your beliefs, they keep you an individual.

Answer 7

I think so, because you'll know that you've done what's right, and God will know it, too.

Answer 8

The net consequences?

Speak English, please.