The point, GDR, is that doing a moral thing can have negative consequences so therefore it isn't as simple as loving and unloving.
In your view you do a moral thing out of love. Tangle does the same thing out of benefit. You try to negate Tangle's good because of an unseen future negative, yet your good suffers the same consequence.
Does this negate the moral reasonings behind the initial action?
Tangle's claim is that morality boils down to harm or benefit.
He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think Tangle, as you do, assigns the morality to the reason for the initial action.
In neither of your cases would either of you perform the initial action knowing of the negative outcome.
So you're back to square one. Tangle's morality comes down to the benefit expected from an action. Immorality comes down to the harm expected to be done by an action.
If the intention is to give benefit then it is a moral good. If the intent is to do harm then it is a moral bad.
according to C S Lewis the spiritiual is the real reality.
Not even. But we already know religious types have the entire world bass-akwards.
If this spirituality were reality then all spirituality, like the moon, would be the same everywhere. We wouldn't have thousands of conflicting often violent cults all springing from the same spiritual base.
It is the different fantasies of spirituality in the human mind that leads directly to the spiritual conflicts of the cults.
Good deeds get rewarded in unexpected ways, bad deeds are followed by various kinds of thwartings and disappointments.
This is a form of cognitive dissonance. If you feel guilty you will find your punishment *somewhere* whether related or not. All you have to do is wait and something will get you. That is a constant of life in this universe.
You drop your toast butter-side down. That's your punishment for thinking ill of your neighbor. A flower pot falling from a second story window does not hit you, just misses your head. That's your reward for helping that old lady with her heavy boxes.
The fact that both of those instances would have happened to you regardless of any actions you took doesn't even occur to you. You are looking for a connection so you await an instance, any instance that would have happened regardless, to attribute to this spiritual connection.
This is a known human psychological thing. Everyone goes through these things. Even someone as brilliantly un-spiritual and reality-based as myself has to wonder what I did to piss-off the universe that it gave me a flat tire. The damn prick.
rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit.
Would you say your action is taken with the intent to be loving or with the intent to be unloving? Does it matter that the adjectives are loving/unloving or beneficial/harmful? Are you trying to sneak in a religious connotation?
Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent.
I can see and appreciate your definition, your focus, in the popular vernacular. But, here is where we will disagree.
To say something is beneficial does not void the giver's intent if the outcome was not as desired. You can constrict your view, your definition, to results only or you can give points for effort even if the plan fails.
Look at any action. Was the intent to be beneficial? If the answer is yes then the action was moral.
We can judge all morality by beneficial vs harmful without ever considering the outcome only the intent, and without having to specify "intended to be" to modify the adjective.