Disagree, to the extent that you need to discount results against available information, processing ability, and alternatives at the time of the decision. Also, not all good or bad decisions have similar outcomes, the world is not just. Personally, I've found more use out of refining my decision process and what goes into it than focusing on results. Not to say results aren't a useful signal, but they're hardly the only or even the most important signal.
I agree with you that the EV of trying to be "good" generally outweighs the other path. However, not getting discouraged by the marketing of "bad with no consequences" is difficult in today's world!
I still disagree with much of what you said, also in your follow-up, but I appreciate your replying so civilly to what was a fairly caustic post on my part. Thank you for exemplifying the best of HN discourse!
What I was trying to put across was that we get the results what we cause. I always bear the outcome of what I did. Can you think of an escape from the effects of what we do? (I deliberately ignore the other side of this, I'm not talking about effects we did not cause, such as trouble others cause for others)
If you pick good, right, proper, meant to be, what should be, what is righteous, what is true, honest, genuine, with integrity actions, then you ought to bear fruit that is caused by that. I think that this produces better outcomes than picking bad, not good, wrong, untrue, false, not honest, not genuine actions/thoughts/speech.
In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results.
So if we seek after good, shouldn't we get the effects of good back because we surround ourselves with it?
This is separate independent reasoning from when bad things befall people who do all things right. I haven't thought much about that.
Do we bear the effects of what other's cause?
The two wrongs don't create a right refers to the idea of avoid basing my reasoning on doing something on something bad and calling it good. I should keep my reasoning of my reaction to bad things purely based on goodness and not based on the bad thing itself. I never want to say I did something purely due to a bad thing. I think you could call it motivation. I want to keep good and bad independent and not merge them into one. Can something bad cause something good in other words? Or did the good that it is a reaction to cause itself?