From Pragmatism I naturally tend to look at the utility of things. What things "mean" in terms of what they "do", the consequences. The question I ask myself (and others) is what is the "point" of something. Or, "what is it good for?". So, benefit and harm for me are always in the picture. To me that's the key to understanding morality. Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone.gad-fly wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2020, 11:31 pmNot appropriate. Benefit and harm is utilitarian. Plus or minus. Right is about balance. Give and take. Being fair to self and all. Benefit and harm is out of the picture.
On the other hand, ironically, I really hate Utilitarianism. To me, the Utilitarians chose the WRONG utility! They chose pleasure and pain as the utility of their morality. Achieving the best pleasure and the least pain are NOT reliable guides to what is right and wrong, or what is good and bad. There are too many things that "feel" good but which are objectively bad for us, like heroin or gluttony or all the other bad habits we can get into. And there are some very important things that are very painful, like childbirth, or getting our childhood vaccinations, that are clearly good for us.
So, morality should be about what is actually good or bad for us, rather than what merely feels good or feels bad to us. And feelings are malleable. So the correct order of things is to first discover what is good for us, and second to choose to feel good about it.