News:

New members, please say hello to the forum in the Introductions board!

Main Menu

Argyle & Wilson "Argyle does not know right from wrong" (among other things)

Started by Argyle, September 18, 2012, 11:04:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Argyle

Wilson challenged me on the point of moral integrity in his thread on evolution. Rather than pick up an unrelated debate there (goodness knows enough already have been picked up) I'll invite him to make his case here. The results should be an interesting read.

I have only one request of Wilson, that he not, at any point, resort to copying blocks of text verbatim either of arguments or quotes from famous individuals. Links are fine, so long as he is making the bulk of the argument in his own words. I will agree to do the same.

The floor is yours Wilson.  ||tip hat||

PS: If others wish to comment on our exchange, please use the designated thread here: Click me I'm a link to the comment thread!
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Argyle on September 21, 2012, 08:40:04 PM
Wilson:
You continue to ignore my question.
Why do you not wish to engage in the discussion which you initiated in a forum which is more secure from interruption?
Am I seeing the answer demonstrated in your continual evasion of the question by responding to others, but not to the now three times I have asked?
Mister, you are a nag - a terrible nag! It must be awful to live with you.
I was looking for my list. It was in a file on my hard drive somewhere.
Just found it.
I have nothing to hide from the others. Do you? So we will do the exercise right here.
Here goes:
Lesbianism, pornography, NAMBLA, patriotism, lying, insurance fraud, pimping, nationalism, crass commercialism, bribery, justice for the rich, political intrigue, price gouging, permissiveness, child abuse, gun culture, deviousness, hypocrisy, fornication, assault, uncleanness, tax evasion, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, betrayal, contentions, divisions, sects, nepotism, false advertising, "cooking" of the books, envies, drunken bouts, greed, reviling, extortion, pedophilia, frivolous lawsuits, pimping, lying, violent entertainment, homosexuality, public nudity, scams, home invasion, competition, defrauding, terrorism, disloyalty, premarital and extramarital sex, foul language, unjust profit, deforestation, drug abuse, prostitution, abortion on demand, legal maneuvering, rebellion, insubordination.

Tell me Argyle - which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors?

Take your time.
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
I have nothing to hide from the others. Do you? So we will do the exercise right here.

Don't you? The debate thread would not be a private debate, but a public debate. It would make it more difficult to hide your failed arguments, not harder. If anything refusing to discuss this subject without interference amounts to a favoring of obfuscating the debate.

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
Tell me Argyle - which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors?

I do not prescribe to prescriptive morality. While I would have a very hard time seeing any situation in which some of those actions could be considered good (and some of the things you listed are not actions at all).
In short, those situations in which the actions you have listed would cause unnecessary harm they are "wrong", in those situations that they promote well being, they are "right". If any of these can never promote well being and always causes unnecessary harm, they would qualify as wrong acts.

For brevity I will choose one of the actions you listed: lying
In the midst of the activities of the Third Reich a great many of jewish descent were concealed, or used fake papers. They lied. This was not a wrong act because of the circumstances of the action.
Ray comfort stated that Darwin created the theory of evolution in order to get revenge on god because of the death of his daughter. Ray knew perfectly well that Darwin's theory was well in hand before his daughters death, he lied, in this case his lie promoted a false idea of the basis of a scientific theory and encouraged willful ignorance among the uneducated. This was a wrong act because of the circumstances of the action.

Of course, I am operating from my definition of "right" and "wrong".
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Argyle on September 22, 2012, 04:00:33 AM
Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
I have nothing to hide from the others. Do you? So we will do the exercise right here.
Don't you? The debate thread would not be a private debate, but a public debate. It would make it more difficult to hide your failed arguments, not harder. If anything refusing to discuss this subject without interference amounts to a favoring of obfuscating the debate.
You're pushing it. I told you I will not follow your lead anywhere - did I not? Why can't you let it be? You simply have no respect for my position. DO NOT TRY TO LEAD ME ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW - OK?

Clear, now?
Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
Tell me Argyle - which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors?
Quote from: Argyle
I do not prescribe to prescriptive morality. While I would have a very hard time seeing any situation in which some of those actions could be considered good (and some of the things you listed are not actions at all).
In short, those situations in which the actions you have listed would cause unnecessary harm they are "wrong", in those situations that they promote well being, they are "right". If any of these can never promote well being and always causes unnecessary harm, they would qualify as wrong acts.

For brevity I will choose one of the actions you listed: lying
In the midst of the activities of the Third Reich a great many of jewish descent were concealed, or used fake papers. They lied. This was not a wrong act because of the circumstances of the action.
Ray comfort stated that Darwin created the theory of evolution in order to get revenge on god because of the death of his daughter. Ray knew perfectly well that Darwin's theory was well in hand before his daughters death, he lied, in this case his lie promoted a false idea of the basis of a scientific theory and encouraged willful ignorance among the uneducated. This was a wrong act because of the circumstances of the action.

Of course, I am operating from my definition of "right" and "wrong".
Before we go any further, there is a part of my question you?re skirting around.
I?ll ask it again: ??..which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors??

We can take it from there.
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 12:14:04 PM
You're pushing it. I told you I will not follow your lead anywhere - did I not? Why can't you let it be? You simply have no respect for my position. DO NOT TRY TO LEAD ME ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW - OK?

I'm asking you -WHY- that is the case, why this vitriolic reaction to my inviting you to an informal one on one debate? How is my knowing -WHY- a threat?

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
I?ll ask it again: ??..which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors??
We can take it from there.

I'm sorry, did my response not match the script you were working from?
Perhaps I can illustrate my point better in the form of a question.



Looking at the image above, can you identify for each square whether it is black or white? It is of course a trick question. Many of the squares are neither, some are very nearly black and some very nearly white, but none of these squares are purely black or purely white. Does this mean that you lack the ability to identify black from white? Have I just proven that you are incapable of telling black from white?
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Quote from: Argyle on September 22, 2012, 04:00:33 AM
Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
I have nothing to hide from the others. Do you? So we will do the exercise right here.

Don't you? The debate thread would not be a private debate, but a public debate. It would make it more difficult to hide your failed arguments, not harder. If anything refusing to discuss this subject without interference amounts to a favoring of obfuscating the debate.

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
Tell me Argyle - which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors?

I do not prescribe to prescriptive morality. While I would have a very hard time seeing any situation in which some of those actions could be considered good (and some of the things you listed are not actions at all).
Correction!
ALL of them describe what people DO. Action is involved.
QuoteIn short, those situations in which the actions you have listed would cause unnecessary harm they are "wrong", in those situations that they promote well being, they are "right".
You do not have the right to decide when harm is necessary. If you claim that right, then everyone else is entitled to it, too. That is the formula for war and chaos, an apt description for the present world condition.
Anyway.........
Let's test that. Can you describe any of these activities in which harm is not inflicted?
Lesbianism, pornography, NAMBLA, patriotism, lying, insurance fraud, pimping, nationalism, crass commercialism, bribery, justice for the rich, political intrigue, price gouging, permissiveness, child abuse, gun culture, deviousness, hypocrisy, fornication, assault, uncleanness, tax evasion, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, betrayal, contentions, divisions, sects, nepotism, false advertising, "cooking" of the books, envies, drunken bouts, greed, reviling, extortion, pedophilia, frivolous lawsuits, pimping, lying, violent entertainment, homosexuality, public nudity, scams, home invasion, competition, defrauding, terrorism, disloyalty, premarital and extramarital sex, foul language, unjust profit, deforestation, drug abuse, prostitution, abortion on demand, legal maneuvering, rebellion, insubordination.

If
Quoteany of these can never promote well being and always causes unnecessary harm, they would qualify as wrong acts.
In other words - you don't know.
There you have it!
You just proved my point. You just admitted that you do not know right from wrong, good from bad, and you have not described any of them as "totally unacceptable behavior."
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

First and foremost, I notice that my response to your response was not responded to, and instead you have responded a second time to my first response in a different way, in order to keep the conversation moving forward I will include another copy of my response which you have ignored.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Correction!
ALL of them describe what people DO. Action is involved.

NAMBLA is an organization. Pornography is a form of film which includes erotic elements. Patriotism is not an action, but a quality. Political intrigue is not an action. Permissiveness is not an action and is not even remotely specific, permissiveness of what? Gun culture is also, not an action. Uncleanness is vague, loose conduct is vague, practice of spiritism is vague (and incidentally applies to trinitarian Christianity and faith healing), enmities is not an action, strife is not an action, jealousy is not an action, contentions are not actions, divisions are not actions, sects are not actions, nepotism I'll grant implies actions but is actually like patriotism a quality of actions, envies is not an action, greed is not an action, reviling is not an action, pedophilia is not an action, violent entertainment is not in and of itself an action, homosexuality is not an action, competition is not in and of itself an action, terrorism like patriotism and nepotism is not an action but a quality of actions.

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of your very ill organized and badly worded list is a list of rather randomly juxtaposed things which you appear to have a moral opinion on, but which in and of themselves cannot be evaluated morally because they are not acts.

NAMBLA for instance, by it's mere existence is not "wrong" it is the actions taken by members of NAMBLA which may or may not promote statutory rape which holds a high probability of harming children which I would likely consider "wrong".

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
You do not have the right to decide when harm is necessary. If you claim that right, then everyone else is entitled to it, too. That is the formula for war and chaos, an apt description for the present world condition.

Wilson, I did not claim that I determine by my own will what is or is not necessary harm. Obviously if I did your critique would be accurate, but I did not.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Anyway.........
Let's test that. Can you describe any of these activities in which harm is not inflicted?
Lesbianism, pornography, NAMBLA, patriotism, lying, insurance fraud, pimping, nationalism, crass commercialism, bribery, justice for the rich, political intrigue, price gouging, permissiveness, child abuse, gun culture, deviousness, hypocrisy, fornication, assault, uncleanness, tax evasion, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, betrayal, contentions, divisions, sects, nepotism, false advertising, "cooking" of the books, envies, drunken bouts, greed, reviling, extortion, pedophilia, frivolous lawsuits, pimping, lying, violent entertainment, homosexuality, public nudity, scams, home invasion, competition, defrauding, terrorism, disloyalty, premarital and extramarital sex, foul language, unjust profit, deforestation, drug abuse, prostitution, abortion on demand, legal maneuvering, rebellion, insubordination.

All of the ones which are not activities.
The rest are situational.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
In other words - you don't know.
There you have it!
You just proved my point. You just admitted that you do not know right from wrong, good from bad, and you have not described any of them as "totally unacceptable behavior."

See my previous response below, it is the same response I would give now.


Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 12:14:04 PM
You're pushing it. I told you I will not follow your lead anywhere - did I not? Why can't you let it be? You simply have no respect for my position. DO NOT TRY TO LEAD ME ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW - OK?

I'm asking you -WHY- that is the case, why this vitriolic reaction to my inviting you to an informal one on one debate? How is my knowing -WHY- a threat?

Quote from: wilson on September 22, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
I?ll ask it again: ??..which ones of all these activities are evil, wrong, bad, totally unacceptable behaviors??
We can take it from there.

I'm sorry, did my response not match the script you were working from?
Perhaps I can illustrate my point better in the form of a question.



Looking at the image above, can you identify for each square whether it is black or white? It is of course a trick question. Many of the squares are neither, some are very nearly black and some very nearly white, but none of these squares are purely black or purely white. Does this mean that you lack the ability to identify black from white? Have I just proven that you are incapable of telling black from white?
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:53:42 PM
Quote from: Argyle on September 23, 2012, 05:16:30 AM
First and foremost, I notice that my response to your response was not responded to, and instead you have responded a second time to my first response in a different way, in order to keep the conversation moving forward I will include another copy of my response which you have ignored.
You're not saying I did something wrong - are you? I can respond to any post in any way I like.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Correction!
ALL of them describe what people DO. Action is involved.
QuoteNAMBLA is an organization.
We know what it promotes.
QuotePornography is a form of film which includes erotic elements.
Its harm has been documented. Deception, strained marital relations, divorce, disturbed children, broken homes, burdens on taxpayers, etc, etc. It has even led to kidnapping, rape and murder. EVERY (male) serial killer in which sex was involved, has admitted his addiction to pornography.
QuotePatriotism is not an action, but a quality.
It causes people to be willing to kill people they never met and for whom they hold no animosity; and puts nation against nation.
QuotePolitical intrigue is not an action.
It puts nation against nation.
QuotePermissiveness is not an action and is not even remotely specific, permissiveness of what?
e.g. Children are harmed by permissive parents. Society is harmed by permissive laws and lawmakers.
QuoteGun culture is also, not an action.
The cultivating of the gun mentality has resulted in many deaths.
Think of the millions of people whose lives have ended violently since the invention of gunpowder!
QuoteUncleanness is vague,
Both physical and spiritual uncleanness causes sickness and death.
QuoteNAMBLA for instance, by it's mere existence is not "wrong" it is the actions taken by members of NAMBLA which may or may not promote statutory rape which holds a high probability of harming children which I would likely consider "wrong".
Not wrong! When a group of men get organized for the sole purpose of influencing the public and lawmakers to favor their disgusting practices, that?s WRONG!
I?ll stop here for now because this can go on for quite a while.
This all amounts to your feeble attempt at damage control.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
You do not have the right to decide when harm is necessary. If you claim that right, then everyone else is entitled to it, too. That is the formula for war and chaos, an apt description for the present world condition.
Quote from: Argyle on September 23, 2012, 05:16:30 AM
Wilson, I did not claim that I determine by my own will what is or is not necessary harm. Obviously if I did your critique would be accurate, but I did not.
Take a good look at what you wrote - I won?t misquote you like you do me:
? In short, those situations in which the actions you have listed would cause unnecessary harm they are "wrong", in those situations that they promote well being, they are "right".
Now look at the last words in Reply # 554:
?Of course, I am operating from my definition of "right" and "wrong".

Was all that written for your benefit or for mine? You use terms that let me know that this is what YOU think is right or wrong; so then you have determined, by your own will, when harm is necessary or unnecessary in order to meet your standards of right and wrong.

You also wrote: ?IF ANY OF THESE CAN NEVER PROMOTE WELL-BEING AND ALWAYS CAUSE UNNESSARY HARM,THEY WOULD QUALIFY AS WRONG ACTS.

You are telling me that you do not know.

Besides, you have not described any of them as "totally unacceptable behavior."

I will not engage in arguments over the contents of my list. It could be endless. 

I made my point.

Case closed!

Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:53:42 PM
You're not saying I did something wrong - are you? I can respond to any post in any way I like.

And if I responded to your post by saying "Ostriches. Case closed, I win!" I could certainly do that, but it would be irrelevant to the conversation, and unproductive in terms of discussing the subject.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Correction!
ALL of them describe what people DO. Action is involved.

No, they don't. Actions are related, but they are not in and of themselves actions. I don't see a reason to continue debating what is or is not an action, I think that any reasonably educated person with a grasp on the english language can read my previous post and clearly understand the difference between qualities of actions and actions, organizations and actions, etc. The fact that you are unconvinced or in denial about this does not really change a thing.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Was all that written for your benefit or for mine? You use terms that let me know that this is what YOU think is right or wrong; so then you have determined, by your own will, when harm is necessary or unnecessary in order to meet your standards of right and wrong.

You also wrote: ?IF ANY OF THESE CAN NEVER PROMOTE WELL-BEING AND ALWAYS CAUSE UNNESSARY HARM,THEY WOULD QUALIFY AS WRONG ACTS.
You are telling me that you do not know.

The nature of the action and the environment in which it occurs, and the effect that it has is what determines whether the action is right or wrong, that was my point. By using the term "necessary harm" I am referring to situations such as, in the case of a woman being sexually assaulted, it may be necessary for her to blind her attacker in order to prevent the greater harm of the rape. I was not claiming that I make the determination in and of myself as to whether the harm is necessary, it is the situation which determines that.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Besides, you have not described any of them as "totally unacceptable behavior."

Because I am pointing out the flaw in your little game rather than playing it. Here I shall do it again since you seem to be avoiding answering my rebuttal:



Looking at the image above, can you identify for each square whether it is black or white? It is of course a trick question. Many of the squares are neither, some are very nearly black and some very nearly white, but none of these squares are purely black or purely white. Does this mean that you lack the ability to identify black from white? Have I just proven that you are incapable of telling black from white?

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
I will not engage in arguments over the contents of my list. It could be endless.

Anyone reading this exchange will have already read my response to the contents of your list, so I feel no need to get into it any further.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
I made my point.
Case closed!

I am always amused when someone thinks that they can simply declare victory in a debate.
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 11:08:47 PM
Quote from: Argyle on September 23, 2012, 05:53:04 PM
Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:53:42 PM
You're not saying I did something wrong - are you? I can respond to any post in any way I like.
And if I responded to your post by saying "Ostriches. Case closed, I win!" I could certainly do that, but it would be irrelevant to the conversation, and unproductive in terms of discussing the subject.
Are you saying I did something wrong?
Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Correction! ALL of them describe what people DO. Action is involved.
Quote from: Argyle
No, they don't. Actions are related, but they are not in and of themselves actions. I don't see a reason to continue debating what is or is not an action,
I'm no debating that - you are!
QuoteI think that any reasonably educated person with a grasp on the english language can read my previous post and clearly understand the difference between qualities of actions and actions, organizations and actions, etc. The fact that you are unconvinced or in denial about this does not really change a thing.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Was all that written for your benefit or for mine? You use terms that let me know that this is what YOU think is right or wrong; so then you have determined, by your own will, when harm is necessary or unnecessary in order to meet your standards of right and wrong.

You also wrote: ?IF ANY OF THESE CAN NEVER PROMOTE WELL-BEING AND ALWAYS CAUSE UNNESSARY HARM,THEY WOULD QUALIFY AS WRONG ACTS.
You are telling me that you do not know.

QuoteThe nature of the action and the environment in which it occurs, and the effect that it has is what determines whether the action is right or wrong, that was my point.
That is MY point, too. But with that point of view, you are not able to take precautionary or anticipatory action.
?Shrewd is the one that has seen the calamity and proceeds to conceal himself, but the inexperienced have passed along and must suffer the penalty.? (Proverbs 22:3)
QuoteBy using the term "necessary harm" I am referring to situations such as, in the case of a woman being sexually assaulted, it may be necessary for her to blind her attacker in order to prevent the greater harm of the rape. I was not claiming that I make the determination in and of myself as to whether the harm is necessary, it is the situation which determines that.
Now you?re talking about what you meant or didn?t mean. But that ain?t what you said.

Quote from: wilson on September 23, 2012, 03:59:38 AM
Besides, you have not described any of them as "totally unacceptable behavior."
Quote from: Argyle
Because I am pointing out the flaw in your little game rather than playing it. Here I shall do it again since you seem to be avoiding answering my rebuttal:
Rebuttal! To what?
Can?t you see how irrelevant this illustration is?
You do not know right from wrong and I?m only going by what you said!
You really are in no position to give advice, correct, admonish, encourage, counsel, criticize or chastise any young person in what is right or wrong, since you have to wait to observe the results of any action BEFORE you decide if it is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.
I?m only going by your own words.

Listen - I gave you too much slack. The last few times I used my list, I only asked them to tell me which of the activities were totally unacceptable behavior. That is what I should have done with you.
QuoteI am always amused when someone thinks that they can simply declare victory in a debate.
Mister - I?m not declaring victory;

I  EARNED it!
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Wilson:
The illustration rebutted your entire premise. Your premise is that you can list things (preferably actions) and say from looking at the list whether they are right or wrong.
The illustration demonstrated the principle which I was introducing, which is that actions can contain a varying level of promotion of harm or promotion of well being depending upon the circumstances of the action. Like the boxes in the gradient they are neither good nor evil (entirely black or entirely white) but fall somewhere on a moral landscape. Just as the inability to label each box as either black or white does not show that I am incapable of distinguishing black from white, my refusal to label a broad category of actions or groups as "wrong" does not belie an inability to distinguish right from wrong.

There is a flaw in your script. You may need to revise it.
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Argyle

Quote from: wilson
Rebuttal! To what?
Can?t you see how irrelevant this illustration is?
You do not know right from wrong and I?m only going by what you said!
You really are in no position to give advice, correct, admonish, encourage, counsel, criticize or chastise any young person in what is right or wrong, since you have to wait to observe the results of any action BEFORE you decide if it is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.
I?m only going by your own words.

To which I replied:
QuoteWilson:
The illustration rebutted your entire premise. Your premise is that you can list things (preferably actions) and say from looking at the list whether they are right or wrong.
The illustration demonstrated the principle which I was introducing, which is that actions can contain a varying level of promotion of harm or promotion of well being depending upon the circumstances of the action. Like the boxes in the gradient they are neither good nor evil (entirely black or entirely white) but fall somewhere on a moral landscape. Just as the inability to label each box as either black or white does not show that I am incapable of distinguishing black from white, my refusal to label a broad category of actions or groups as "wrong" does not belie an inability to distinguish right from wrong.

There is a flaw in your script. You may need to revise it.

And will now add in response to your objection to the idea that basing the morality of an action on the outcome means you cannot know whether it was moral until after performing the action:
There are different perspectives of judging an action. When deciding what decision one should make one should take into account as much information as they can have access to and attempt to make the decision that most maximizes well being and most reduces harm EG: moves as far up in the moral landscape as possible. They will have made the "right decision" to the degree that their decision was the best out of all paths which they could have percieved. That is different from evaluating the moral value of an action. I understand it is more confusing than prescriptive morality, and you think that it means you can declare victory because it confuses you, but you really can't.
||tip hat||
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,