If You Do All The Right Things For All The Wrong Reasons, Are You Good?

[ThaiGreenTea]

Discuss!

[tp6626]

Nope, you're lucky.

I try to do the right things, at the right time, for the right reasons. Can't go wrong with that!

[Jakalwarrior]

What is good? Define good? In my moral scheme fair is the only good. If you manage to be fair at all times to everyone by accident, you were still fair and no one was imposed upon or harmed so its all good.

[Homini Lupus]

If you mean ethically, other people will likely consider you good, history will remember you as good so I guess you are good. If you act someway you do it because you consider it the best thing to do. If your results are good then you were probably right.

Or you are a man who does the general good in spite of his schemes, like (given that allied victory in WWII is a right thing) Mussolini did attacking Greece and spoiling operation Barbarossa. But I'm not sure this second interpretation meets the OP.

[emanon]

No, you would not be morally good because that sort of goodness is an internal matter. Outwardly, you would appear good, but I wonder how well a facade of outward goodness can be kept up unless history immortalizes your good actions.

[bricklayer]

If you do the right things for the wrong reasons you still did the wrong thing.

[Beery Swine]

Oohh, that question sounds a little Nietzschian to me.

I say your heart can be as black as coal, for all I care, but if you pay your taxes, don't abuse your kids (physically, mentally, intellectually, sexually, or otherwise) or neglect them, don't pick fights with people and even try to avoid them, lend a helping hand to your neighbour when they need it, you're alright by me. Let your inner soul be as wicked as Yahweh himself, as long as you do good, why should I care? And what's more, how would I know?

In the exact opposite case, if you start an illegal war, suspend basic civil rights and liberties, flush the economy down the shitter, lie constantly about your motives for doing these things, send the educational system spiraling further and further into "retardsville", out and out steal a government position for yourself, try to rule the public with fear (= terrorism), well, your heart can be of the purest gold, for all I care, and I would say you should be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Whew, I'm very cathartic today. I doubt anyone will miss who I'm talking about in the second example.

[LionsPride]

I think if you managed to do all the right things for the wrong reasons, you completely missed the point and the fact that right things occurred is merely coincidence. I don't believe that anyone should be considered good because they did right by coincidence.

I suppose you could do right by others for your own selfish gain (like Christians and their need to make it into heaven), but that requires the debate as to whether a person is good if they do kind acts for their own benefit alone.

[Bobleplask]

Depends if "good" exists outside of us or not.

If good is defined by people, then the answer to the question is "yes, you are good".

If good is defined by a God or something similar, then the answer is "no, you are evil".

[Antares]

There is no good or evil, only justice. This is what I subscribe to. There is no objective good or evil. If you donate to charity not because you genuinely want them to be better, but to feel good about yourself that you actually aren't pathetic enough to be the one requiring donation, your reason isn't good, but you still did a good thing. If you consider it from an objective point of view, your intent isn't really the important thing here. What's important is that people benefitted from your... erm... generous donation. That's the tangible result here. It doesn't matter if you really wished them well or not, because the result is the same. But on a personal level, you did it for a selfish reason, your intent may not give you a 'good' status, but to anyone outside of yourself (and anyone ignorant of your intent), you'd still be 'good'. So I'd say you're still good.

[Monte314]

The Bible says "God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

As finite creatures, we cannot guarantee the outcome of any action. But we do intend certain outcomes when we act, and for these *intentions* we are responsible.

[Bioplasmoid]

The Bible says "God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

As finite creatures, we cannot guarantee the outcome of any action. But we do intend certain outcomes when we act, and for these *intentions* we are responsible.

That may well be so, but how could a truly fair god ultimately judge the intention in the heart, when everything we are is the product of something else? We are all works in progress, in the sense that external influences constantly exert changes on us and our ethics and choices. The only solid foundations we have to work from are the laws and standards of our societal system, our parental upbringing, and the values of our peers and loved ones. The trouble of course is that these loyalties are often conflicting in an increasingly complex and chaotic civilisation.

(Im not attacking your personal beliefs, I just would like to hear your take on my perspective in the moment)

[IgnoranceIsKind]

The basis to which an answer should form to this question would be the ethical propriety the 'wrong thing'. A deed in the name of a wrong goal would be inherently immoral, no matter how 'right' the actions that were taken in order to accomplish this. Therefore to properly assess such a question, there are several points that must be clarified.

(a) Is the 'wrong reason' one that is subjective? A subjective cause would be like what Antares said, in the instance of donating to charity, the intention may be not always be true to the cause. One that isn't subjective would be something as forceful as sabotaging a colleague, for example.

(b)The aforementioned 'right things' may actually be the 'required' thing. A distinction must be made to whether it is merely a mandatory step; one that needed in order to fufill the said reason, or a seemingly wayward situation that in doing the right thing it ends up for a wrong cause, or reason, whichever you prefer.

IMO, a reason that is wrong will not be preceded by 'right' steps, but rather required ones. This is theorized under the assumption that you have control and dictation to where your cause is directed towards. If it isn't, for example, such as in the case of the donation that your funds were misused or embezzeled for the benefits of others than which it was intended, and your cause was sabotaged, albeit the fact that it was begun for a good cause, it would be a different situation altogether.

But I guess I'll be sticking to my belief that if the reason of your cause were wrong to begin with, then the preceding steps cannot be labelled as good at all. Therefore, no, one cannot be good if one's intention were grounded in wrong reasons.

[Monte314]

That may well be so, but how could a truly fair god ultimately judge the intention in the heart, when everything we are is the product of something else? We are all works in progress, in the sense that external influences constantly exert changes on us and our ethics and choices. The only solid foundations we have to work from are the laws and standards of our societal system, our parental upbringing, and the values of our peers and loved ones. The trouble of course is that these loyalties are often conflicting in an increasingly complex and chaotic civilisation.

(Im not attacking your personal beliefs, I just would like to hear your take on my perspective in the moment)
This is a very insightful question. You are quite right; your question is sound, and should be asked. And I don't view asking an honest question as an attack.

There are some partial answers that provide a little satisfaction, but the modern theologian R. C. Sproul refers to this issue (referred to technically as the problem of "theodocy": How can an omnipotent God avoid responsibility for the evil actions of His creatures?) as "the hardest theological question there is".

Your question goes right to the heart of many others, for example, the question of how and why "evil" even exists if God is both "good" and "omnipotent". It also touches directly on the question of human "free will", and questions about "why" things are as they are.

The best reply I can make is... a question as profound as yours is too deep for anything but a misleadingly flawed treatment in this venue, given that I'm sitting her on my bed typing into a little white box. I have devoted quite a bit of study to these questions, and have answers that are sufficient to satisfy me; but they cannot be compactly expressed.

But I will summarize my position (without explanation):

1.) God is the completely good and omnipotent creator of everything that has created, and continues to be the ultimate Governor of His creation.
2.) Evil exists.
3.) God does sovereignly ordain whatsoever actually comes to pass, but is not "the author of evil" and is completely without guilt or moral fault of any kind.

Unifying these ideas is not simple.

Unifying the ideas of physics is not simple, either, and we certainly don't expect short, transparent answers that all will grasp there. Neither should we expect short, simple answers that all will grasp when discussing the deep questions about a transcendent God, Who is much more complex than His creation.

So, is that sufficiently unsatisfying?

[bricklayer]

That may well be so, but how could a truly fair god ultimately judge the intention in the heart, when everything we are is the product of something else? We are all works in progress, in the sense that external influences constantly exert changes on us and our ethics and choices. The only solid foundations we have to work from are the laws and standards of our societal system, our parental upbringing, and the values of our peers and loved ones. The trouble of course is that these loyalties are often conflicting in an increasingly complex and chaotic civilisation.

(Im not attacking your personal beliefs, I just would like to hear your take on my perspective in the moment)

If a God can create everything and know everything, I think he would be a better judge of our actions and thoughts than us.

[IgnoranceIsKind]

Yet such a creator cannot be proven to exist, and the only thing left is for us to be our own judges ;P

[bricklayer]

Yet such a creator cannot be proven to exist, and the only thing left is for us to be our own judges ;P
True, He cannot be proven nor disproven. But if you seek Him with your heart you will find Him. ;)

[quest ion]

Well I have seeked with my heart and yet I've found nothing.

[Bobleplask]

Yet such a creator cannot be proven to exist, and the only thing left is for us to be our own judges ;P

That's exactly right. People do not know God exist. They believe God exist.

Break everything down and we do not know anything at all.

[emanon]

I suppose you could do right by others for your own selfish gain (like Christians and their need to make it into heaven), but that requires the debate as to whether a person is good if they do kind acts for their own benefit alone.

Dubious example - a person can do all the good actions they can stand, but that's not what's getting them into heaven.

[Monte314]

Dubious example - a person can do all the good actions they can stand, but that's not what's getting them into heaven.
So true.

It's amazing to me that in a "gospel saturated" culture so few people have any understanding of even the basics. That's how we end up with all these threads having the same tired "red herrings" and "straw man arguments" stacked like cord wood.

[ThaiGreenTea]

So true.

It's amazing to me that in a "gospel saturated" culture so few people have any understanding of even the basics. That's how we end up with all these threads having the same tired "red herrings" and "straw man arguments" stacked like cord wood.

Err, society is gospel saturated? Really? I mean, 1,000 years ago, sure, but now? You're kidding yourself.

[muguly]

You are what you are: to do good for the wrong reasons manipulative and controlling if done intentionally. If done inadvertently, it's kinda like dumb luck. That makes you a lucky S.O.B.

[bricklayer]

Well I have seeked with my heart and yet I've found nothing.

With your heart? Or with your brain?

[quest ion]

If the intention is wrong, everything else would be wrong.

[Brutananadilewski]

With your heart? Or with your brain?

What's the distinction? Really...

[sriv]

Oohh, that question sounds a little Nietzschian to me.

I say your heart can be as black as coal, for all I care, but if you pay your taxes, don't abuse your kids (physically, mentally, intellectually, sexually, or otherwise) or neglect them, don't pick fights with people and even try to avoid them, lend a helping hand to your neighbour when they need it, you're alright by me. Let your inner soul be as wicked as Yahweh himself, as long as you do good, why should I care? And what's more, how would I know?

In the exact opposite case, if you start an illegal war, suspend basic civil rights and liberties, flush the economy down the shitter, lie constantly about your motives for doing these things, send the educational system spiraling further and further into "retardsville", out and out steal a government position for yourself, try to rule the public with fear (= terrorism), well, your heart can be of the purest gold, for all I care, and I would say you should be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Whew, I'm very cathartic today. I doubt anyone will miss who I'm talking about in the second example.

Completely agree. :laugh:

If the intention is wrong, everything else would be wrong.

Why? Is that just an opinion or do you have backing?

[ThaiGreenTea]

Why? Is that just an opinion or do you have backing?
Can anything in the philosophy section really have backing? It's all opinion.

[sriv]

Can anything in the philosophy section really have backing? It's all opinion.
In essence, it is opinion, but on the surface, there can be backing.
Examples work.

[bricklayer]

What's the distinction? Really...

To search with your brain - try to logically prove that something is true. Even though not everything that is true can be scientifically proven and put into an equation.

To search with your heart - be open minded. Evaluate your feelings toward the issue, try to talk to God, and see what your instincts tell you. If the supernatural does exist, then anything is possible. It sounds "hippy-dippy" .. but how do you feel?

[Homini Lupus]

If I let defences down everything may enter, from delusions to devil. Logic is not everything having the same limits of humans, but it's still our best tool.

[LionsPride]

Dubious example - a person can do all the good actions they can stand, but that's not what's getting them into heaven.

I agree with you entirely. I wasn't suggesting that the logic used by a person who was selfishly trying to get into heaven was a good one, only that I'm sure it has happened, at which point they would be doing good for entirely the wrong reasons (their own selfish gain, no matter how delusional). It was the only example I could think of that would make a person do good, over and over again while their intentions were bad AND without them ever expressing the evil to the rest of society (hence actually fulfilling the terms of the question asked by ThaiGreenTea).

However, as I pointed out, that begs the debate as to whether selfishness is actually the wrong reason and I know there are different camps on this. Generally speaking the God believers stand with what you said, that good deeds for selfish reasons won't get you to heaven. With admittance to Heaven being the judge of good/bad. I feel much the same in that I don't think good things can come from evil desires. They are always tainted in some way.

[Beery Swine]

To search with your heart - be open minded. Evaluate your feelings toward the issue, try to talk to God, and see what your instincts tell you. If the supernatural does exist, then anything is possible. It sounds "hippy-dippy" .. but how do you feel?

If I go by instincts and feelings alone, all I get is that I am the One True God by right, somehow or other dethroned, and will one day reclaim that which is lost and smite anything and everything as I see fit. Intellect says that's all bullshit.

No joke, either.

[bricklayer]

If I go by instincts and feelings alone, all I get is that I am the One True God by right, somehow or other dethroned, and will one day reclaim that which is lost and smite anything and everything as I see fit. Intellect says that's all bullshit.

No joke, either.

Perhaps you're Jesus, reincarnated. lol

[comet]

If You Do All The Right Things For All The Wrong Reasons, Are You Good?

Not necessarily.

We don't all have the same sense of morality, so what's right for someone could be terribly wrong for another.

[SnakeFeather]

How would you quantify what constitutes the "good'' life or a ''good'' person?
Do you tally your intentions and actions in a "good" column and a "bad" column at the end of your life? How can you know for sure that your "good" intentioned "good" action ended in a "good" result?

How would you be aware of the moral consequences of your actions? Are you valuating based on the immediate perceived result? Or do you speculate on the effect of your action farther into the future?

Is there any point in thinking in terms of ''good" and "evil"? Don't most people regard themselves as the "good" protagonist in their existential narrative?

I know I'm cheating by being socratic, but it's so easy I couldn't resist.

The concept that there are ''good people'' or that there's such a thing as a ''good person'' to me is a childish notion. Even if such a thing as a ''good" person existed it would be extremely rare. To me morality is a game, set with arbitrary rules and supported by a few useful social agreements.

[bricklayer]

How would you quantify what constitutes the "good'' life or a ''good'' person?
Do you tally your intentions and actions in a "good" column and a "bad" column at the end of your life? How can you know for sure that your "good" intentioned "good" action ended in a "good" result?

How would you be aware of the moral consequences of your actions? Are you valuating based on the immediate perceived result? Or do you speculate on the effect of your action farther into the future?

Is there any point in thinking in terms of ''good" and "evil"? Don't most people regard themselves as the "good" protagonist in their existential narrative?

I know I'm cheating by being socratic, but it's so easy I couldn't resist.

The concept that there are ''good people'' or that there's such a thing as a ''good person'' to me is a childish notion. Even if such a thing as a ''good" person existed it would be extremely rare. To me morality is a game, set with arbitrary rules and supported by a few useful social agreements.

So Adolf Hitler is no different from Mother Teresa?

[SnakeFeather]

Hitler is considered evil because he lost. Mother Teresa is considered good, because a large population plays by the same moral set she did.

[daniel777]

Hitler is considered evil because he lost. Mother Teresa is considered good, because a large population plays by the same moral set she did.so the morality of a situation or action is dependent on whoever has the most authority over other people?

[SnakeFeather]

Yes of course it is.
I don't view moral relativism as a choice. To me it just is.

[daniel777]

Yes of course it is.
I don't view moral relativism as a choice. To me it just is.
eh, same way i feel about God on both my post and your response. but i'm not feeling very apologetical right now. eh... i'm so bored.

[lollardy2000]

Let’s start with a typical INTJ problem here: CYNICISM.
As in: “Hitler is considered evil because he lost. Mother Teresa is considered good, because a large population plays by the same moral set she did” and “I don't view moral relativism as a choice. To me it just is.”

No, Hitler is evil because he killed millions of people – actually worse, he helped set up a political apparatus, and went to war with it, that made neighbors hate each other due to “differences” in their humanity. And he did it based on resentment, ressentiment (for all you INTJ Nietzsche lovers), and revenge. In other words, he lied – killing Jews, taking Poland, etc. would NOT make up for the harm and injury done to Germany, nor would it guarantee a prosperous future. Hitler is evil because he got other people to act in the worst ways possible. There were plenty of people who thought Hitler was evil before and during his reign of terror – before he lost. “Moral relativism” does not mean morals are irrelevant; it means they differ from society to society – superficially, because deep down, we do share much, much more than we differ (like DNA with chimpanzees).

The point of morals, in general (NOT which set of morals), is for a society to have a standard of living – prohibiting that which harms individuals or groups in a society, and promoting what is good, healthy, and joy-bringing for individuals or groups in a society. So it is not a choice; when people start opting out, the system collapses – oh wait, that’s the kind of abstract philosophical anarchic “libertarianism” all you INTJ’s love! There is sure to be disagreement – as in Weimar Germany (some people thought Hitler was moral, others thought he was immoral) – but the disagreement was not over whether or not to have morals, it was over which set. What everyone agreed on was that people needed to follow one set of morals…

…which leads me to my second point: god. I’m totally down with Jesus, but I don’t know what his “daddy” is doin’ here on the INTJ forum: “It's amazing to me that in a "gospel saturated" culture so few people have any understanding of even the basics. That's how we end up with all these threads having the same tired "red herrings" and "straw man arguments" stacked like cord wood” and “Dubious example - a person can do all the good actions they can stand, but that's not what's getting them into heaven.”

Now I do agree that there is a preponderance of red herrings and straw men, since INTJ’s like to live in their Own Heads and Ideas and Concepts and forget the real world is so much more messy and complex than Pure Libertarianism. But this is a good point about dubious examples, and it shows that reducing moral systems (a la Kant, who was an extreme INTJ) to Simple (Simplistic?) aphorisms, even if they are dressed up as Categorical Imperatives (i.e., “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” – which really means, “treat others the way you want to be treated”), throws out all the narrative richness that our traditional founts of morality (i.e., religion) provide (although they are founts of less pleasant behaviors as well).

In other words, the bible, or even aesop’s fables, SHOW US, IN DETAIL, that, as one of you said “If the intention is wrong, everything else would be wrong.” Why? Because humans are reflexive creatures – we learn from our successes and failures, be they moral, strategic, financial, etc. So once we start “doing things for the wrong reason” (which really can only include a few major types of actions – greed, pride, power, harm, etc.), and then start seeing that either 1) people don’t like the results of your actions or 2) people do like the results of your actions, 1 of 2 things will result, respectively – 1) in the first case, where people don’t like the results of your actions, it is because they saw through you, they saw you had bad intentions but were trying to cloak your behavior as something good – you are a liar or hypocrite or sociopath. 2) in the second case, where people do like the results of your actions, you, and they, are fooled (but only ever temporarily – does the Iraq war seem like it was fought FOR democracy in Iraq anymore?) into thinking that something good could come of your less-than-honorable intentions. You are rewarded for your behavior, so you repeat it… until repeating your bad intentions eventually stops producing results that appear to be good… and you are back in situation 1), where people don’t like the results of your actions.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong or incomplete on this matter.

So yes, it is “objectively true” that “Can anything in the philosophy section really have backing? It's all opinion” – but that misses the point. Moral systems may bear a resemblance to mass opinion – but it is mass opinion that is shared, that works to safeguard the health of the community, and that is open to change (though difficult).

So, no, I do not agree that “If I go by instincts and feelings alone, all I get is that I am the One True God by right, somehow or other dethroned, and will one day reclaim that which is lost and smite anything and everything as I see fit. Intellect says that's all bullshit.”

Why? Because “instincts and feelings” are NOT what humans use to deceive themselves or do bad (see this link To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). “Instincts and feelings” are what is required to have sympathy and empathy – to have morality.

Let me ask - is it better to be just or merciful? is it worse to be unjust or merciless?
(I just opened a new thread on this.)

It is cognition – bare rationality – that yokes our emotions to harebrained schemes to deceive or do evil or “think we can get away with it” [situation 2) above]. OR we choose not to apply our reason, and let our destructive emotions run amok. I think Hitler did both of these very effectively; that’s why his evil succeeded so well – he got people to THINK as well as FEEL along with him. INTJ’s, you are in particular danger of missing these points. All NT’s are suspect to simply becoming cogs in the machine, because we think we are so smart, but we just end up cynical – and forgo moral deliberation because we call it dismissively “opinion” or “feelings” which we say we cannot “prove” or “provide evidence for.”

Rubbish. In fact, dangerous rubbish.

This line of thinking throws out all the narrative richness that our traditional founts of morality provide. “Religion”, despite the evil ends to which humankind puts it, still has not had its applecart overturned by Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud – EXCEPT for the individualist-capitalist creed, which combined the worst elements of all four of these misanthropes to create the widely-popular Take-Everything-For-Myself-Because-I-Can creed. So hey, don’t hate China for pollution and overpopulation and repression – they’re only doing what is “rational” – and hey, if you disagree, that’s just your “opinion.”

So no, you cannot “trick” anyone, including the future or destiny or morality, with your unhealthy intentions, no matter how you dress it up. If you try to, not only are you “not good” (a vague descriptor if there ever was one) – you are a fucking blight on the human race, and shame on you.

[SnakeFeather]

Well put Lollardy2000. What I meant by my flippant remark about Hitler is that if he had won, our concept of good would be much different.

[lollardy2000]

Hitler DID win - at least for a decade or so. And during that decade, fascism was winning too. And already, our current 21st century understanding of that distant memory is quite cloudy; we wish to argue that fascism was either a result of extreme leftists tendencies or extreme rightist tendencies - and that therefore the Right or Left is morally invalid. Neither is true; Hitler and his ilk were corporatists - statists who used different forms of populism (ethnic, economic, religious) to band together the state, economic forces, religion, and popular culture into one writhing, venomous serpent. Our conception of good WAS much different back then - but how? Already we have forgotten, and leave it to contemporary pundits to tell us the history they never lived through either. Fascism and the cold war, along with class struggle, may be "dead" "historical periods", but they are not dead moral concepts - they all involve, one way or another, the idea of divide-and-conquer and the capital-S State. The question is, is BushII's corporatism different in degree or in type - the corporatism where you raze a sovereign country in order to "legally" transfer your own citizen's tax dollars to favored corporations under the guise of "reconstruction" and "democracy"? Morals look different, here, too.

[Ool]

No, but you’re lucky.

[Beery Swine]

Perhaps you're Jesus, reincarnated. lol

:laugh: Good one. Or maybe I'm supposed to bring balance to The Force. lol

[Homini Lupus]

[...]

In other words, the bible, or even aesop’s fables, SHOW US, IN DETAIL, that, as one of you said “If the intention is wrong, everything else would be wrong.” Why? Because humans are reflexive creatures – we learn from our successes and failures, be they moral, strategic, financial, etc. So once we start “doing things for the wrong reason” (which really can only include a few major types of actions – greed, pride, power, harm, etc.), and then start seeing that either 1) people don’t like the results of your actions or 2) people do like the results of your actions, 1 of 2 things will result, respectively – 1) in the first case, where people don’t like the results of your actions, it is because they saw through you, they saw you had bad intentions but were trying to cloak your behavior as something good – you are a liar or hypocrite or sociopath. 2) in the second case, where people do like the results of your actions, you, and they, are fooled (but only ever temporarily – does the Iraq war seem like it was fought FOR democracy in Iraq anymore?) into thinking that something good could come of your less-than-honorable intentions. You are rewarded for your behavior, so you repeat it… until repeating your bad intentions eventually stops producing results that appear to be good… and you are back in situation 1), where people don’t like the results of your actions.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong or incomplete on this matter.

[...]

So no, you cannot “trick” anyone, including the future or destiny or morality, with your unhealthy intentions, no matter how you dress it up. If you try to, not only are you “not good” (a vague descriptor if there ever was one) – you are a fucking blight on the human race, and shame on you.


I think you are oversimplyfing the problem of good/bad intentions. In the point of view of many people who right now are considered the wost criminals of history (not all but many) they were doing the good thing. And people believed them in some cases. Witch-hunting, religion wars, imperialism, world wars... all of these situations had people who, in order to gain the best future for their countries or ideal, committed mass murders, wars etc.

And by the way, many people is used to be appointed of bad judgements of value just for being themselves, and are quite immunised. I don't think adding some addressed to the readers may in any way contribute to the discussions.

[kevintr]

I think it depends on what ones wrong reasons are. If you do good in the hopes of attaining happiness you could be called selfish but I beleve youre a moral person, most religions that don't emphisize hell say moral actions bring happyness, immoral actions reduce it.
If you do right actions because you were told they are right and you were too lazy to cosider it, or for vain reasons, sutch as to be popular, I beleve you will become good because youre actions tend to change you.
If you do good to manipulate a situation so you can later commit evil I beleve your intent for evil will corrupt your good act so even if the outward effects are good you won't be. Youre mind is very powerful and can override circumstances, especally concerning there effects on youre mental state and the condition of youre, for want of a better word, soul.

[Quite8the8bell]

This goes to the opinion of what's good, bad, crazy, etc. What is right that leads to anything bad? It can't be 'right' in the first place if in the long term it ends up bad. If it is unintentionally bad then it isn't bad, you cannot do bad unless you know you are doing bad. That's where the conception of bad sort of comes in (not quite.) But, your overall question's answer is no, you cannot say you are doing something good when you know it's bad, that's hypocritical. It's like an extreme of lying to yourself.

[Tocsin]

One of the best quotes I've read on the nature of human intentions and outcomes:

"The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced. "
--Aldous Huxley

I used that quote on a political website a few years back, to which I added:

Regarding the question of whether or not one can use the tactics of the enemy without becoming him; it is true that some practices can be employed to achieve different goals, but there are some methods whose use cannot fulfill a purpose which contradicts the nature of its use. The shackles of bondage cannot be used to liberate. You cannot make people free through repression. Democracy cannot be imposed through dictatorship (contrary to our current foreign policy). And also contrary to US history, a village cannot be saved by destroying it.

[Polymath]

If You Do All The Right Things For All The Wrong Reasons, Are You Good?

Depends on definitions, but I do know that I'd be glad you existed, no matter what your intent, for what that's worth.

If you do the right things for the wrong reasons you still did the wrong thing.

I never really got this reasoning. It's kind of self contradictory too... if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, it's now defined to be the wrong thing as well as having already been defined to be right, so it's both right and wrong? By this train of thought, any action is both right and wrong, because any action has infinite possible intents of all possible degrees of good and bad, regardless of what you define those two concepts to be, that could lead up to it being taken.

Here's a semi-ripped off example, IIRC. Let's say we define it to be "right" to save an innocent person's life. Let's say there's some innocent guy who had an attack and passed out on a railroad with nobody around. What if some psycho comes across the guy and sees a train coming. Normally he'd just stand there in the bushes and watch in glee as the guy got run over, but he thinks to himself, "Hmmm, I think I'll save the guy, hold him for ransom, kill him when I get the ransom anyway, and use the money to buy weapons for a shooting spree downtown" or something (let's say we define this group of actions as a whole to be wrong). Let's say he does move the guy off the track right before the speeding train comes, but right then, some cops come along and the psycho has no choice but to accept the cops' congratulations and let the them take the guy to the hospital.

Or, same situation, but instead of a psycho, one of the cops gets there earlier and, at the same time and in the same fashion as the psycho, moves the guy off the track.

Exact same action and consequences--an innocent person's life is saved. How is the same action, regardless of intent (a separate thing, obviously), right one time and wrong the other, when nothing about the action itself is different?

[PunkinA]

This makes me think of another problem. What if I want to be evil. I mean downright the most damnedest person ever. If all I want is to make the world the most evil place I can possibly accomplish it?

What if in the process, I determine that the best way to achieve my goals is to embed within everyone around me the illusion that I am a good person. I do my best to earn trust, sympathy, and love from my surrounding humans. All this time though, my main goal is to pervert that trust before the end of my life to maximize suffering throughout!

Now here's the catch, what if I get hit by a bus before achieving my devious plan? Without ever performing my single act of wrongness, am I stuck dying a good person?

What does a person have to do to be a devil around here anyway?

[ReiJi]

By "all the right things for all the wrong reasons", do you mean like giving a large amount of money to charity to receive a large amount of positive publicity? I think it does make you good, but it obviously depends on what you're doing. However, if someone other than you benifits shouldn't it be seen as positive?

[kwago]

By "all the right things for all the wrong reasons", do you mean like giving a large amount of money to charity to receive a large amount of positive publicity? I think it does make you good, but it obviously depends on what you're doing. However, if someone other than you benifits shouldn't it be seen as positive?

Immanuel Kant states that what is good is the result of “good will”. So what does it mean to have a good will? To Kant, someone with a good will acts in a way that they personally feel is the right way to act. The action performed does not have to meet certain external standards of what is considered good. The only requirement is that the person performing the action felt that it was the right thing to do. The good action could have horrible consequences, but as long as the person was acting out of good will, to Kant the action is still seen as having moral worth despite the unfavorable outcome. The familiar saying “he/she means well” about a person that manages to make things worse when they think they are helping to improve a situation, is very much like this.

Not everything we do that appears to be good can be determined to have any moral worth though. Kant believed that acting out of sheer duty, while still good in itself, has much less more worth than acting solely out of good will - the highest form of good. For example, if you are a lifeguard and you saved someone’s life by preventing him or her from drowning, Kant would say that your action had little if any moral worth. Now lets say you are not a lifeguard and you see a child struggling to stay afloat and you are the only one that notices. Every second matters at this point and you don’t have time to undress. You jump into the water fully clothed in your brand new Zegna suit and swim as fast as you can. You arrive at the child and the child is just staring at you with a confused look. It turns out a sibling of the child was playing around and pulling the child underwater. You swim back to shore, slowly and really, really annoyed. It wasn’t your job or duty to play lifeguard; you actually hate swimming and you ruined your suit, but you did it despite your personal issues and got absolutely nothing positive from it. If he were alive, Kant would award you fifty points of moral worth because you acted out of good will, rather than duty. You are hesitant to accept the award by just humbly saying “anyone would of done what I did”, but would they really?

The Categorical Imperative is the heart and soul of Kant’s concept of duty. It states one should “act only on that maxim which you could at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, whatever action you decide to take should be the same action that should be taken universally, becoming moral law. When you jumped into the water to save what you thought was a drowning child, were you thinking that anyone else would do the same? What if you were really drowning, would you expect a complete stranger to play the role of lifeguard to save your life if they noticed you were in danger? If so, your action could qualify as something that should be universal law.

[MaleVolentworld]

If you do all the right things for all the wrong reasons, are you good?

1. do all the right things = act moral, be virtuous (To do is to act, a right thing is a moral thing.)
2. for all the wrong reasons = immoral motivation, immoral value(Wrong is immoral, reason is motivation)
3. are you good = are you moral

1. = act, how are you going to get that value
2. = thought, what value are you motivated to get

Damn this is difficult to find an example, I can find the reverse easy enough.
Motivation to amass wealth, by robbing a bank. The act is immoral but motivation is moral.

Ok how about this one:
Motivation to kill lots of innocent people and live in prison, by training to become a doctor. It's short term though, once trained then the doctor can give an overdose to his patients, get caught and live the rest of his life in prison. (Harold Shipman) Ultimately, in the long run, the immoral motivation will result in an immoral act.

Most of the time crime is a result of people valuing the good but acting to get it in a wrong way. Sex is a value, rape is not a virtue. Money is a value, robbing banks is not a virtue, neither is fraud.


I can't think of an example where someone values that which is immoral, and seeks to gain it in a moral way. Unless...you value harmful drugs and act to get them by purchasing them legally with your own money from a shop. Is this man good? well think a bit further ahead and it will turn out that he started with an immoral value, gained it in a moral way, but will end up using the immoral value (drug) to commit an immoral act (inject it, swallow it)


Ok ok ok ok so the answer is, if you are motivated to gain an immoral value, you will in the long run act immoral.

[zibber]

Exact same action and consequences--an innocent person's life is saved. How is the same action, regardless of intent (a separate thing, obviously), right one time and wrong the other, when nothing about the action itself is different?

An action, viewed purely physically/mechanically, cannot be said to be wrong or right (in an ethical sense). Ethics deal with human behavior, which surely doesn't consist of purely mechanical events.


Motivation to amass wealth, by robbing a bank. The act is immoral but motivation is moral.


Wha-wha-whaat? Hang on, Mal.. I'm fascinated- how is avarice moral?

[MaleVolentworld]

Money helps to allow you to sustain your life and pursue enjoyments. If you had no money at all you couldn't survive for very long. Being a medium of exchange, it allows you to exchange your services/products for the services/products of others, if you can't exchange because you have no money then you are stuck. Unless you can survive by living alone in the wild, even so, the standard of living would be very low.

Zibber, you have a choice, no money, or money, what do you choose?

[Zsych]

I'd say a mentality that does good for the wrong reasons should typically be expected to also create problems in other cases, because the base mindset isn't geared towards goodness. I'd expect that external good to be part of a larger group of events leading to something that isn't good.

[John F Kennedy]

If you had a girlfriend/boyfriend that constantly wished you evil and plotted for your death, but their plan always fell through and resulted in something beneficial for you, would you still love and marry them?

[MaleVolentworld]

If you had a girlfriend/boyfriend that constantly wished you evil and plotted for your death, but their plan always fell through and resulted in something beneficial for you, would you still love and marry them?

hahaha that is great. I ask not what JFK can do for the forum, I ask what JFK can do for me, and he made me laugh.

[Baccara]

Discuss!

How is one to define "right" and "wrong?" These would seem pretty arbitrary terms, on both social and personal levels, and the interpretation of the action would depend on perspective. Is action judged by the actor, or by the audience? And what if there is no audience? Consider the moral dilemma at the conclusion of Watchman, for instance (the graphic novel, not the movie; just because it's the first example that springs to mind): is it right or wrong to kill innocent people to save other innocent people, if essentially nobody realizes you've killed or saved anyone at all?

The same definitional questions apply to "good"/evil" and for "moral/immoral." Are "good" and "moral" the same thing, or "moral" and "right?" Is "right" always necessarily "good?"

And here's something I've often wondered: Is it possible for "good" to exist without "evil" (or vice versa?)

(I'm good at asking questions, not that great at answering...)

[John F Kennedy]

There's also this: "Good intentions pave the road to hell".

[BlackMita]

How I handle this dilemma: If the people you value like your actions, who cares? Sure I feel some guilt when I subtract from humanity's well being, but this is remedied by noting that I'm not a god and its impossible to try to be one.

[Tsukasa]

I would say it depends on whether you consider yourself good or what others think of you. You would also have to assign the strength as to which means more to you. Also, your actions, words, and outcome would be important in qualifying what is 'good' or 'evil'.

Look at Robin Hood. He stole, but he helped people in destitution. Most people consider him good as far as I can tell.