Moral Question

[DarthTofu]

Answer the poll, and let me know where your vote lies. I'm curious myself as to which is correct, and I can't choose, thus I have no vote. I want to see what everyone's opinion is.

[Mad78]

It is a rather paradoxal question.

The thing being that how is it you can do something right for wrong reasons (still a bit too hungvoer to find my own examples).

[Darth_Rob]

Thats a tough one. I suppose it really depends on the situation and your own personal morals. For example, if you're doing something bad, but it will help you in long run, maybe it is worth doing, so long as it doesn't go against your own personal morals. At the same time, doing something against your morals may benefit someone else or society in the long run, so maybe its worth doing.

 

I suppose there is no correct answer. It all depends on your own personal morals, in my opinion.

[DarthTofu]

I'd give an example, but I suppose there are examples for both. For instance- what if you only act selflessly because you secretly know that people will say, "What a great guy; he's very selfless!" and you want the praise of selflessness? You're doing the right thing in being selfless, but for the wrong reasons.

 

Let's say that you're trying to help somebody from falling into a bad situation. You care for that person, but someone else keeps dragging them back into the bad situation. You kill the person that drags them into bad situations; now you've done the wrong thing for the right reasons.

 

These examples aren't the best, as it seems that I've skewed it toward my own view, which has come out as "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons." Notice, I said, "For the wrong reasons," not "by the wrong means." The ends don't justify the means, but they do justify the reason for doing something, I think. If the ends are positive and God told you to do it, it's just as good for everyone as if Satan told you to do it, it would seem.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

It begs the question as to whether or not there is such a thing as true selflessness, or acts of genuine altruism, and how would you define that?

 

I don't think either of the options would be particularly ethical (being as we're discussing this I think ethics is more apt than morals =P). I like the Buddhist description of ethical behavior being "that which achieves harmony by allowing compassion to oneself, and compassion for everything else." But Kant has some good ideas on it too.

 

Here's an idea- When I saw The Dark Knight it was very much like watching a battle of the philosophers. The Joker being Nietzsche, Two-Face being Kant, and Batman being Plato. They are all three very different ethical codes but each with it's own substance.

 

The Joker being the example of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Killing, instilling fear, and chaos in order to make people take control of things, and participate rather than sit in apathy. Batman would be an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons(arguably). His crusade is really a vendetta that just happens to result in good things.

 

So which is better, or how would you define ethics?