Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?

Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons? I think it is always better for the right thing to occur, no matter the reasons. It is better to do things for the right reasons though.

Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?

Both are equally wrong.

Agreed.

Dropping the A-Bomb was the wrong thing for the right reasons. Yet any educated individual will agree that that was horrible and inexcusable.

Scenario:

Homeless on the street, rich man gives them a job, cosigns their loans etc. only so he can say to his friends, "Look what I did."

Right thing, wrong reason. Was it better to have done it or not?

I agree that the wrong thing was never right no matter the correctness of reason. I disagree with the assessments made of doing right for incorrectness of reason being necessarily wrong.

Sometimes situations are not as simple as do the right thing or do the wrong thing, and in fact, both scenarios proposed in this thread are pretty optimistic. They both allow for the "right" thing to be done in different ways.

Without going all subjective on right and wrong, whatever maximizes the outcome you are looking for is probably best... If we take a "Randian" look at it, then rational self-interest will always lead to the most desireable outcomes since it is in everyone's best interest to get along. Obviously that is limited in its application, but does work here imho.

It depends on what your definition of right and wrong is in any situation but generally I tend to think that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is better than the right thing for the wrong reasons.

If it does good then what do the intentions matter?

Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?

In the short term doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better because the positive event occurs.

In the long term doing the wrong thing for the right reasons can lead to more total "good" in the world because it means that there is a person out there trying to do the right thing.

Words right and wrong can be the same thing in different views.

x can equal y.

Therefore, this equates to needing a different wording

Originally posted by chithappens
Words right and wrong can be the same thing in different views.

x can equal y.

Therefore, this equates to needing a different wording



This thread has nothing to do with what the words mean.

It does because of the fact that they can easily mean the same thing. That's like trying to decipher ultimate good and ultimate evil.

Basically, the thread starts by repeating itself and asking which is worse.

Originally posted by chithappens
It does because of the fact that they can easily mean the same thing. That's like trying to decipher ultimate good and ultimate evil



So you want to split hairs to the point of the question being:

"Is it better to do what you subjectively consider to be the right thing for the wrong reasons, or do what you subjectively consider to be the the wrong thing for the right reasons?"

equal

Originally posted by Marxman
Agreed.

Dropping the A-Bomb was the wrong thing for the right reasons. Yet any educated individual will agree that that was horrible and inexcusable.


all is fair in love and war.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
all is fair in love and war.

*nukes his GF*

. . . crap

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
So dropping the Nuclear bomb on Japan was not wrong, because we did it for okay reasons?

Yes, Japan, we did just basically ass rape you, destroy your economy, kill your women, children, and elderly people, radiate your soil for the next hundred years..but we did it with the best intentions


No. No way in hell.

Let's not use war. That is truly the x=y argument

It doesn't matter. It still applies. Just because your in war doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

But in the case of war there would never be an "ok" situation.

Wrong and right is something measured by the effects on those involved, the eventual benefits/losses and the possible alternative scenarios. It's a point of view matter I think, but harmfull to one of the parties involved in this eqasion anyhow. Kinda comes down to 'how much do you deserve to put another down for your own benefit, and on what scale?'

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
It doesn't matter. It still applies. Just because your in war doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

Originally posted by chithappens
But in the case of war there would never be an "ok" situation.

I agree 100% with chit here

War is by it's definition morally wrong, trying to say what is or is not acceptable while engaging in morally wrong action is moot as far as I am concerned.

In my opinion, rules and morals of war are acts of self legitimization and justification for the wrong actions that it is sometimes necessary to make.

Originally posted by chithappens
But in the case of war there would never be an "ok" situation.

Even if they're doing it with the "best intentions"? Your contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
Even if they're doing it with the "best intentions"? Your contradicting yourself.

How? You need to explain that.

War is not about best intentions. Countries do not go at war because they are trying to help those who can not help themselves. Countries war based on utilitarian principles; there is no concern for the enemy.

Best intentions in war equate to "**** you! Pay me!" kinda stuff. No soldier is going to give a damn about a soldier on the other side. In the case of war, if an enemy soldier is caught under a burning car, your "best intention" would be to leave him there. The burning soldiers says "That's ****ed up!" I tip my hat and say, "Just doing my job sir." I say right, he say wrong.

Morality does not exist in war.

Best intention can not exist in war, and is simply a PR way of feeding it the public of your country.

You are contradicting yourself. You gotta come better than that.

Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?

They're both the same.

A right thing done for wrong reasons is wrong, and a wrong thing done for right reasons is still wrong. But if it was a matter of life and death to choose between the two, I would choose the latter. Only because intentions at times carry more weight than the act committed.

It is better to do things with the best intentions in mind. Good intentions will flow thoughtful actions.

Right. Better to do a wrong for the right intentions, than a right for the wrong intentions...

A right for the wrong reason would make it a selfish reason then and the outcome even if it did work out well is not a truth.

Originally posted by chithappens
How? You need to explain that.

War is not about best intentions. Countries do not go at war because they are trying to help those who can not help themselves. Countries war based on utilitarian principles; there is no concern for the enemy.

Best intentions in war equate to "**** you! Pay me!" kinda stuff. No soldier is going to give a damn about a soldier on the other side. In the case of war, if an enemy soldier is caught under a burning car, your "best intention" would be to leave him there. The burning soldiers says "That's ****ed up!" I tip my hat and say, "Just doing my job sir." I say right, he say wrong.

Morality does not exist in war.

Best intention can not exist in war, and is simply a PR way of feeding it the public of your country.

You are contradicting yourself. You gotta come better than that.

So Soldiers who are "defending their homeland" don't have good intentions?

Their are many US Soldiers in Iraq right now who honestly believe that by being in this war they are doing the right thing, saving the world from terrorists. In Vietnam, I'm sure their were some Soldiers that actually believed that they were saving S.Vietnam from the "horror" that was Kommunism. In World War II, I'm sure their were Soldiers who thought that by killing as many Japanese soldiers as possible, they're somehow saving the world.

Trust me, PLENTY of morality exists in war, just not to certain people. And feel free to explain how I was contradicting myself.

what is bad intention

I don't see the relevancy.

Answer the question and it will make sense

M'kay. Leading me into a corner? Eh.

imo good and evil are all from point of views.

Well in my opinion, it would be to react to all situations with the highest form of dignity no matter what the circumstances are/were. To be credible and in truth in all situations and not to lower yourself to deceit, lying, conniving, slander to reach your goals.

my basic morals would say that to do anything for the right reasons that can be justified by your principles is right. but if the reasons are backed up by your principles you shouldnt be able to do the wrong thing... but if you can justify doing something you have a clear conscience, the outcome isn't bad

Originally posted by chithappens
what is bad intention

Does such a thing even exist?

Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?

I find the two mutually exclusive.

the comma and the "and" need not pay homage to each other.

Well, seeing as how Japan did not formally surrender when the first bomb was dropped, it almost seemed necessary, like they wouldn't give up, even after being nuked. The second bomb was definitely kicking them while they were down. I still, however, think it was a bad decision.

Hypothetical question: If Hitler had known that a Jewish individual would rise to power and kill off half of the Earths population, and enslave the majority of the other half, would it justify his actions in that he was accountable for 6 million Jewish deaths?

The wrong thing for the right reason is better becaues it implies you have good intentions but you just dont know the right way of going about it.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason implies you you are ****ing t***** who has evil intentions.

It's better to do the "right" thing.


Of course you have to see it in a global context. To do one right thing now and a much worse thing later might be the "wrong" thing. So, this is really just an interesting question on a local basis. As long as you consider all results the "right" thing, is by definition better. "Better" of course relates to the person that the thing is "right" for.

No one can see all the future possible effects of what they do. Any foresight would only be of primary and relatively soon effects. You can't blame someone for not being omnipresent. I mean if Hitler's grandfather got married to be happy and make himself and his wife happy, would you blame him?

Good versus evil matters on intentions, and not on foresight or predictability. If a person kills an assassin out of cold blood and anger that was going to kill an important political figure for peace, it would be a "good" thing, but it is still clearly evil. It wasn't done to be benevolent. Alternatively, if someone was non lethally poisoned in their bloodstream, and a kindhearted oaf honestly thought the individual was "too full of bad blood" and severed an artery of the poisoned person to help them, but they ended up dying from the cut (and not the poison). It is done out of "good" and the lack of foresight on the issue is just an exaggerated sense of what none of us can see on the grand scale: the future.

Originally posted by Regret
I think it is always better for the right thing to occur, no matter the reasons. It is better to do things for the right reasons though.

Bingo!

Originally posted by Regret
I think it is always better for the right thing to occur, no matter the reasons. It is better to do things for the right reasons though. Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Bingo! Dudes, that makes no sense...which is better now?

It is better for the good of all that the right thing occurs, no matter what motivation was behind it. However, one who does the wrong thing for the right reasons is likely the better person.

Originally posted by crazylozer
It is better for the good of all that the right thing occurs, no matter what motivation was behind it. However, one who does the wrong thing for the right reasons is likely the better person.

...blow for two reasons:

Originally posted by chithappens
what is bad intention

There is no such thing.

How the hell did this get skipped over?

and

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's better to do the "right" thing.


Of course you have to see it in a global context. To do one right thing now and a much worse thing later might be the "wrong" thing. So, this is really just an interesting question on a local basis. As long as you consider all results the "right" thing, is by definition better. "Better" of course relates to the person that the thing is "right" for.

Long story short, good and bad are relative terms with no universal answer. No sides in war would EVER agree on what is a good intention in their particular war.

Originally posted by chithappens
Long story short, good and bad are relative terms with no universal answer. No sides in war would EVER agree on what is a good intention in their particular war.

I like my stories long, thank you.