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

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I put things in this order:

Right thing for the right reason (Very Good)
Right thing for the wrong reason (Good)
Wrong thing for the right reason (Borderline at best)
Wrong thing for the wrong reason (Very Bad)

Of course it matters as it would be nice if everyone was altuistic, but they aren't, so I'm generally happy if the right thing is done, though I judge someone on a personal level based upon their intent (which can flip 2&3). Are you confused yet?

 

[newfangle]

Of course it matters as it would be nice if everyone was altuistic

That wouldn't be nice at all. That would be the systematic extermination of our species.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Universal embracing of 'love thy neighbor' will be the downfall of man?

Whatever you're smoking, can I have some?

 

[The Last Conformist]

newfangle, I suspect, is using the Objectivist definition of "altruism".

 

[Mathilda]

In real life you rarely have purely right or wrong.
If you have a situation with a good outcome without any negative sides, but with wrong intentions, it doesn't matter.
Iraq war of hiroshima bombing are not such things.

 

[Rambuchan]

Universal embracing of 'love thy neighbor' will be the downfall of man?

Whatever you're smoking, can I have some?

Smoke what Mathilda is smoking >>>

In real life you rarely have purely right or wrong.

Again, realism with idealism, not 'an absolutist idyllic sledgehammer'.

 

[Ciceronian]

Universal embracing of 'love thy neighbor' will be the downfall of man?

Whatever you're smoking, can I have some?

He's been smoking some Nietzsche. According to him, Christian notions such as "pity" or "love thy neighbour" were perverse and destroyed and debased the indivudual.

In general, I believe the intent of an action outweighs its outcome. I would not be as rigid as Kant as to say this is always the case but in most cases the intent is most important.

And I think Nietzsche's idea of no universal morality is a dangerous one. It gives people excuses to commit unjust actions. For instance if the ruling elite were to pass laws benefitting themselves, Nietzsche would say go ahead, the ruling elite is entirely right to be selfish. There can be a universal morality, and whether we base it on reason, as Kant did, or on God, as an unbiased universal overseer, is irrelevant.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I put things in this order:

Right thing for the right reason (Very Good)
Right thing for the wrong reason (Good)
Wrong thing for the right reason (Borderline at best)
Wrong thing for the wrong reason (Very Bad)

Eventually, the person's character, which goes along with the right or wrong reason, will determine more right or wrong acts, and most of the time the quality of the act will tend to match the quality of the reason. But in the meantime, the consequences of one act can be even more important.

 

[RoddyVR]

actions:
right= pet my cat.
wrong= kick my cat.
reasons:
right= cat needs some attention.
wrong= i'm bored.

now who will tell me that:
kick cat because it needs some attention
is better then
pet the cat because i'm bored

and if you just hate cats and think they should be kicked, then your opinion doesnt count because your view of right and wrong is scewed.

edit: obveously
pet the cat cause it needs some attention is best
and
kick the cat cause i'm bored is worst.

 

[IglooDame]

He's been smoking some Nietzsche. According to him, Christian notions such as "pity" or "love thy neighbour" were perverse and destroyed and debased the indivudual.

In general, I believe the intent of an action outweighs its outcome. I would not be as rigid as Kant as to say this is always the case but in most cases the intent is most important.

And I think Nietzsche's idea of no universal morality is a dangerous one. It gives people excuses to commit unjust actions. For instance if the ruling elite were to pass laws benefitting themselves, Nietzsche would say go ahead, the ruling elite is entirely right to be selfish. There can be a universal morality, and whether we base it on reason, as Kant did, or on God, as an unbiased universal overseer, is irrelevant.

Nietzsche would also tell the general populace to go ahead when the general populace asks him if it is okay to hunt down and kill the most selfish members of the ruling elite. And one would assume that the ruling elite would realize that.

 

[Richard Cribb]

While I am all for intellectual promiscuity, I think that people should be a bit cautious with Nietzsche, IMHO that man is worse than his reputation.
Ciceronian has a good point. Even if the traditional ethics of Kant might be outdated and inadequate, its emphasis on human reason and on intent is a most important one. Without being a neo-Kantian myself, I think the slogan "with Kant beyond Kant" is a very good one.
One problem with the "right thing for wrong reason" argument is, as far as I can see, that usually those who would deem such an action the right thing are not identical with those the wrongs are commited to.

 

[IglooDame]

I think it comes down to whether you think it is more objectionable to be dumb, or to be greedy. Personally I think it is more objectionable to be greedy, and so I cut more slack to someone doing the wrong thing for the right reason rather than the reverse. This may be why I would prefer Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton.

 

[JoeM]

I put things in this order:

Right thing for the right reason (Very Good)
Right thing for the wrong reason (Good)
Wrong thing for the right reason (Borderline at best)
Wrong thing for the wrong reason (Very Bad)

Of course it matters as it would be nice if everyone was altuistic, but they aren't, so I'm generally happy if the right thing is done, though I judge someone on a personal level based upon their intent (which can flip 2&3). Are you confused yet?

I think you are correlating right and good to easily, my example of the Iraq war as the right thing, does not make it a good thing.

The right thing for the wrong reason comes about when you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

@E-Raser, Ha ha.

 

[newfangle]

He's been smoking some Nietzsche. According to him, Christian notions such as "pity" or "love thy neighbour" were perverse and destroyed and debased the indivudual.

Wow! You got all that from what I said? So your argument is something like:
A rejects altruism.
Therefore A is a Nietzchian.
Back to the drawing board!

 

[WillJ]

In a sense, consequences are all that matter. If a person is thinking to himself that he'd really, really like to do my wife, that doesn't affect me at all. If he actually does my wife, then that might begin to affect me!

Now, you might be thinking... what, you wouldn't care if someone wanted to do your wife? Are you crazy? Well, I would certainly care, but only because his thinking that means that he might actually one day do it. Intents and thoughts can breed future consequences, and thus shouldn't be ignored. (This is why, for example, I still side with the conventional view that battery with intention of murder should be more strictly punished than just plain old battery---the person with the intent of murder might, in the future, actually murder someone [negative consequences] and thus is more of a threat to society.)

Let's consider, to use one of Adam Smith's examples, the butcher making me meat not because he cares about me but because he's pursuing his self-interest. How do I morally evaluate this butcher? Well, he's making me meat, so pretty highly! But wait, he only cares about himself. Well, why is that such a bad thing? His caring about himself gives me meat, which suggests it's a good thing. Now what if he were a generous fellow who actually gave me meat because he cared about me? Then he might actually have friendly conversations with me and brighten my day, for example. But the selfish bastard that Smith was talking about might actually spit in my meat when he's having a bad day. So then maybe his selfishness isn't such a good thing, but only because of those consequences, not because his intent somehow magically affects me. If the production of meat doesn't automatically make his selfishness a good thing, it can only be because there are some other consequences out there that we haven't considered.

 

[blackheart]

Less judging the actions of others would be better.

 

[Shadylookin]

selflessness is a sham, even if you recieve no monetary or social benefit from a kind action then you 're at least doing it so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[blackheart]

selflessness is a sham, even if you recieve no monetary or social benefit from a kind action then you 're at least doing it so you can feel better about yourself.

Is that a wrong reason though?... This right thing wrong reason is very hard to define, since "right" and "wrong" vary widly amongst people.

 

[ferenginar]

actions:
right= pet my cat.
wrong= kick my cat.
reasons:
right= cat needs some attention.
wrong= i'm bored.

now who will tell me that:
kick cat because it needs some attention
is better then
pet the cat because i'm bored

and if you just hate cats and think they should be kicked, then your opinion doesnt count because your view of right and wrong is scewed.

edit: obveously
pet the cat cause it needs some attention is best
and
kick the cat cause i'm bored is worst.

I'm bored does not fit as the wrong reason to pet a cat, there is nothing wrong about it. A better example would be pet cat as mistook it for dog.

Cat needs attention also does not work as right reason to kick cat, cat chewing on electric cable and about to die from shock does.

You simply cannot choose four things and pair them up to justify a position in this arguement, you must look for specific circumstances that fit and then decide if it is acceptable.

 

[cgannon64]

If you are able to do the right thing for the wrong reason, it is nothing more than concidence. Chances are if you follow those wrong motives, they're not going to lead to the right thing for very long.