zlacker

I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.

>>lg+(OP)
I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did.

As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.