(i have something to ask on meta stackexchange or maths meta stackexchange, but I want to ask a philosophy thing first. In fact, I may not even need to ask on meta stackexchange after this.)
I could swear there was something about Kant or one of those opposites of utilitarianism that might be relevant here, but I can't quite remember.
Question: What philosophies/philosophers claim how 2 actions can have exactly the same effect/s but are morally different, i.e. 1 action is morally good, while the other action is morally evil)?
Definition: I use effect/s in the sense of thomas aquinas' doctrine of double effect.
Note: The word 'effect/s' may be wrong. This question may be kind of confusing. Please help me to edit accordingly. (Also based on your answer/s, feel free to edit the tags as you see fit, eg adding 'Kant' if your answer includes Kant.)
Context and further explanation:
Apparently, someone on maths stackexchange didn't like that a certain user was answering in comments
Arthur: If the alternatives are limited to "Answer in a comment" and "Not answer", the second option is better. (...)
Me: A easy loophole: all i have to do is feign misunderstanding of the question like 'is the answer perhaps [insert answer] because [insert reason]? if not then perhaps i misunderstand your question'. your move.
Arthur: Some times such a comment is a genuine concern about clarity and understanding. Some times it's a concealed desire to have an answer validated. It's always possible to be dishonest on this site. If you think that's fine then I guess we will just have to disagree. (...)
Me: The point is a supposed honest action and a supposed dishonest action have the exact same effect, so how can you characterise 2 actions different morally if in effect they are exactly the same? (And they should be the same regardless of any possible outcomes.) If you can't, then they are morally equivalent. Checkmate.
For Arthur: It seems that it is dishonest to disguise an answer in comment as a question on the question on the question post.
But this seems pretty weird. There's no way to actually tell if the person really is confused by the question post or not: By this logic, a confused person has the privilege to answer questions in comments while a non-confused person doesn't.
For me: Therefore, my rebuttal is that if it isn't dishonest for a confused person to (indirectly) help out by asking a question on the question post that (actually) answers the question, then it also isn't dishonest for a non-confused person to do the exact same thing.
Arthur's principle: What I understand is the principle behind Arthur's reasoning is that 2 actions may be morally different even if they are exactly the same in effect (in effect, in practice, in appearance, below and on the surface of the action. basically everything i believe except intent. Maybe this is a stronger condition than that the 'effects' are the same) because of intent.
I think this is similar/related to what I learned in Catholic/Christian schools eg good effects don't mean good act. You have to consider intent and other stuff. So I think these kind of (Christian?) philosophies may be relevant where different intent but the same effect may make an act morally wrong. (But in this case please clarify the difference of same 'effect' with same 'appearance, below and on the surface of the action', etc. I think there's something more than just effects that I didn't control for. I forgot all these philosophy terms already.)
Philosophy stackexchange vs meta stackexchange: But then my rebuttal is that in this kind of situation...intent is irrelevant. My idea is to leave this part, namely whether or not intent is relevant, for meta stackexchange and the above part for philosophy stackexchange. The philosophy stackexchange part is to please tell me the relevant philosophies for when intent is relevant even though the effects are the same.
I actually commented a reply but Arthur seems to have overlooked this.
wait...i think i asked the wrong question: can i answer in comment as like a preliminary thing before i ultimately answer in a post? i think this way it will avoid downvotes, edits, etc. if i make a mistake in comment and post an answer then the question gets bumped to homepage once but if i post and then a mistake is pointed out and then i edit then the question is bumped at least twice. am i wrong?