Doing the Right Thing For the Wrong Reason: Should it matter?

[Moss]

This quote

The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
T. S. Eliot (1888 - 1965)

got me to thinking about doing the right thing for the wrong reason. For example...doing something for others for your own personal gain? Are all actions created equal no matter any underlying intent by the person doing the good or bad action.

Is it just as good for a person to inspire others because he gets acclaim for it as it is for the person who does it out of the goodness of his heart...assuming the people can't tell the difference...the end result is the same...so would you consider one action more virtuous than the other?

In other words...Is doing the right thing for whatever reason still better than doing the wrong thing?

 

[The Last Conformist]

It seems to me that doing the right thing is by definition preferable to doing the wrong thing.

 

[CurtSibling]

This might get confusing...

The ends defines the means...Sometimes...

.

 

[JoeM]

Yes.

For example, America invaded Iraq because of the oil, yet it was the right thing because it deposed Saddam Hussein and freed the people.

 

[E-Raser]

Yes.

For example, America invaded Iraq because of the oil, yet it was the right thing because it deposed Saddam Hussein and freed the people.

Oh sorry, but I am afraid I am not able to answer until I am back from

 

[Hitro]

Oh sorry, but I am afraid I am not able to answer until I am back from

Correct. That's like saying nuking Hiroshima was good because it ended the war. Oh, wait...

 

[Ciceronian]

Well, Kant has the answer - only the intention matters, i.e. the right reason. The outcome is not important. So if you have self-centered motives but do something good, then your action is nevertheless morally worthless.

 

[farting bob]

For example...doing something for others for your own personal gain?

Yes, i think it is. Politions survive by the principle of doing something to benefit the voters purely for there own ambitions of getting more power. Also, since when was trying to do something to benefit yourself "the wrong thing?" We're not all communists you know..

 

[Sickman]

Well, Kant has the answer - only the intention matters, i.e. the right reason. The outcome is not important. So if you have self-centered motives but do something good, then your action is nevertheless morally worthless.

Kant...where is the suicide smiley when I need it.

I need it bad.

However Kant proves why morals don't work in the real world.
People will find justification, "the right reason" for their actions and suddenly their self-centered motive is one of virtuous man.
Kant's concept is the end of all morals.

 

[Ciceronian]

Kant...where is the suicide smiley when I need it.

I need it bad.

However Kant proves why morals don't work in the real world.
People will find justification, "the right reason" for their actions and suddenly their self-centered motive is one of virtuous man.
Kant's concept is the end of all morals.

So, are you a Utilitarian then, emphasizing the outcome? Or do you prefer Nietzsche, who held that there was no universal morality?

 

[E-Raser]

...We're not all communists you know..

I know and this makes me a lot...

 

[DAv2003]

The TV series of the Shield is a good example of this I think. In it Vic is doing his best to keep the peace in his neighbourhood but is willing to go to extreme lengths to make it happen. Murdering Terry for example.

 

[nonconformist]

The end an d the means. Each situation is unique.
Sometimes the end justifies the means.
The worst things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions.

 

[Rambuchan]

Or do you prefer Nietzsche, who held that there was no universal morality?

I do. There are a myriad different circumstances which would defy examples and definitions. If I have to go one way, I'd lean towards outcomes because that is less open to exploitation than hijacking an intention for ill consequence. But then there are a many exceptions that would arise to that rule also. There isn't a universal answer to this question afaik.

 

[Sickman]

do you prefer Nietzsche, who held that there was no universal morality?

I prefer this fellow.

That doesn't mean we cannot drive ourselves towards less suffering to all.

In the end it even might help even ourselves to have less suffering.

 

[Masquerouge]

There is no universal morality, and Nietzsche stole that from me

You can not objectively judge if a situation is good or bad, right or wrong. There is no definite answer. Every time you're trying to judge something, you judge it according to a relative set of morals/rules/laws. Sometimes that set is shared by many men, sometimes it's not.

Just one example of this. Do you think being rich is good ? Or right ? If you go with Capitalist values, then yes it is. It means you were succesful, better than others, etc. But if you go with Christian values, "it is easier for a camel..." so no it's not.

 

[ummmm........]

This quote


got me to thinking about doing the right thing for the wrong reason. For example...doing something for others for your own personal gain? Are all actions created equal no matter any underlying intent by the person doing the good or bad action.

Is it just as good for a person to inspire others because he gets acclaim for it as it is for the person who does it out of the goodness of his heart...assuming the people can't tell the difference...the end result is the same...so would you consider one action more virtuous than the other?

In other words...Is doing the right thing for whatever reason still better than doing the wrong thing?

Better for whom? If you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, that's no better for you, from a moral standpoint, than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. But the others who are affected by your behavior still benefit from your doing the right thing, so from the perspective of all people, doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not only better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason, but the wrong thing for the right reason as well.

And I'm not even going to go into the relative nature of right and wrong . . .

 

[BasketCase]

Oh sorry, but I am afraid I am not able to answer until I am back from

You may wish to go again, because I agree with JoeM.

 

[h4ppy]

Well, Kant has the answer - only the intention matters, i.e. the right reason. The outcome is not important. So if you have self-centered motives but do something good, then your action is nevertheless morally worthless.

Of course your line of thinking only works if morals matter.

 

[newfangle]

Of course it doesn't matter. The consequences of an act are the only way to determine anything relevent about the act.

As a consequentialist, I am just baffled how some people disagree with me here. (speak up you neo-Kantian synthetic a priori heathens!)