Is it right to do the wrong thing "for the right reason"?

[prof]

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., as part of their "Responsibility Project" - http://responsibility-project.libertymu ... Gg5Aalyc9Y - they have a blog which asks: Is doing the wrong thing--but claiming it’s for the right reasons--ever really right? In the article they offer, as an example, the excuse given by a student for cheating on tests. It's a good excuse! ...but who needs excuses! As you noticed when you read it, he justifies his cheating by saying that when he graduates, he will do lots of good works - and his degree will put him into a better position to do so.

The general moral issue as to whether a (morally) good end 'justifies' (morally) bad means used to get to the good end, was answered - in several ways - in the original post of this thread: ENDS AND MEANS -
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9375

And T. S. Eliot, in his poem, "Murder in the Cathedral" called such conduct "the greatest treason - to do the wrong thing for the right reason."



With regard to cheating in school, I have this to say, based upon my own experience:

If one can cheat well, one does not need to cheat! If one has organized his thoughts on a topic being tested, and has carefully and legibly written the key points down (on a cheat-sheet or on flash cards), he can then throw way the sheet or the cards, and still do very well on the exam

Believe it !


So tell us what you think? ....on the topic....

[duszek]

You train different skills if you cheat successfully.

Your soul will become that of a cheater and people will not trust you in the future when they look into your eyes.

Instead of simply trusting you they will ask themselves: what are you up to ? why are you lying to me ? what for ?

However:

I still remember with great shame the moment when I refused to whisper the right answer to my school friend at school. She was answering in order to improve her grade in chemistry from good to very good and it was extremely important to her because after high school and grammar school she wished to study pharmacy.

She has her pharmacy today and I still feel ashamed of my wickedness back then.

[artisticsolution]

Hi duszek,

"However:

I still remember with great shame the moment when I refused to whisper the right answer to my school friend at school. She was answering in order to improve her grade in chemistry from good to very good and it was extremely important to her because after high school and grammar school she wished to study pharmacy.

She has her pharmacy today and I still feel ashamed of my wickedness back then."

Sometimes you are between a rock and a hard place, morally speaking that is. In this situation you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't. Morally it is good to help a friend. It is also moral not to cheat. You were in a no win situation so don't beat yourself up.

And just think how it would have ruined her if you 2 got caught...so maybe you made the right choice. Obviously you did as everything turned out okay.

[duszek]

I see your point, AS, and yet the situation was not quite as you assume.

In those days in Poland and with this teacher and in this particular situation it would not have been a big deal to give her the right answer and allow her to get "very good". The teacher was not a monster and was willing to be mericful and generous on the last hour of our school days in this school. We were in the last row of seats. The problem was that nobody around us knew the right answer except me. The girl sitting next to me tried to help in the last moment, she took my exercise book (with my silent consent) and opened it in front of the girl answering but it did not help of course. Whereas I remained silent like a stubborn donkey. Perhaps I was mad at her because of something else, I don´t remember now.

I have felt bad about it ever since. I am glad she has her pharmacy.

[duszek]

Another example of "cheating" for the right reason perhaps:

I was queuing in a supermarket and before me was a policeman. While I was paying and after I passed the cashier I noticed that the policeman was staring at me in a strange way. I stared back, puzzled, trying to figure out what was the matter.
Finally he just turned and left.
When I was pushing the trolley to the other trollies and noticed one yoghurt left unpaid in the trolley. I honestly did not notice this one before, which was extremely unusual because I am a careful person.

So the policeman probably noticed my "mistake", looked me in the eye to check if I was doing it intentionally, and decided to let me go.

So the policeman (in a uniform) probably decided to cheat passively on my behalf and decided not to embarass me.

[artisticsolution]

The circumstances don't matter in this case. It is still morally wrong to cheat even if the whole world around you condones it...that is if you think it is morally wrong to cheat....which I think you do generally speaking.

Would you have still felt bad if instead of it being your friend, it was someone you hated or someone the world hated...like Hitler?

If something is morally wrong it is morally wrong in all cases. The hard part in discerning what action is morally right or wrong comes into play when you believe both actions are morally wrong.

Kierkegaard played with this notion of social moralism alot. Is it moral or immoral to do something if everyone thinks it is moral even though you deep down inside know it is immoral or are you held to higher account for your immorality or morality based on what you the individual thinks is right or wrong instead of what society tells you.

I love the story he tell of the preacher on the pulpit talking about the story of Abraham...and how ignorant the preacher is to the depth of Abraham's convictions. That if there had been a person in his congregation who did the same as Abraham he would not believe that person was of God and would not stand on the pulpit to praise his story of faith as he could not understand him. Instead he would probably chastise the person as evil or insane. And how lonely a truly moral life separate from societal influence must be...living for your own morally based convictions to the point of being a social outcast.

So, again I say to you, either way, in that situation, you were going to be morally wrong. It mattered not what other people thought. The fact that others were there to judge your morality and cause you to be shamed by your behavior is what I call an aesthetical distraction. Simply because it masks the underlying true problem of morality with surface appearances of what others think and of how that brainwashes us into complacency.

If you look at your problem sans the social aspect, I think you will agree that:

1. Cheating is wrong
2. Not helping a friend is wrong

You were in a no win situation morally and individually speaking.

[duszek]

Yes, but the reason why I still feel bad about it is that I refused to help for some different reason, not because I wanted to do "the morally right thing".

You can always find an excuse if necessary. But your voice will disclose the truth.

I don´t usually ask myself "what would Jesus do" but I am sure that he would give me a very disappointed look in this situation.

Just by the way: parents cheat their small children all the time, for excellent reasons. Otherwise the babies would be doomed.

[duszek]

Another example when "cheating up to a point" would have been a better option:

A man not looking like a student at all wanted a meal in a students´ restaurant. He wished to pay. But the woman at the cashier could only accept "Essensmarken" (= meal tickets) because only students were entitled to a meal there, not people from outside, but it was not uncommon that a blind eye was turned on the illegal diners. I had a spare "meal ticket", I could have offered it to him, with or without payment. He left the queue without his meal, the cashier had to keep his tray and give it back, she had no possibility at all to be generous in any way, but she would have been greatful if one of the regular students in the queue had helped out.

I still remember the situation as my personal moral failure.

[duszek]

An example from "Les misérables":

A nun who had never before lied in her life saved Jean Valjean, an escaped convict hiding in her room, when the policeman Javert chasing him asked her if she was alone and she said "yes" two times.

The narrator´s comment was that she should be remunerated for her lie in heaven.

[HexHammer]

In very rare cases it's necessary to lie in order to do good.

In stadiums, there has been bomb/fire alarms resulting in people trampling eachother. Statistically there has been by far more deaths in USA by trampling than actual bomb victims. Therefore one MUST make a plausible lie in order to evacuate a crowded place.

1 of the oldest lies I know of is the Battle of Salamis, where Themistocles with great foresight, tricked the fellow politicians and populus into investing in naval power.

[prof]

Yes, but the reason why I still feel bad about it is that I refused to help for some different reason, not because I wanted to do "the morally right thing".
.

Hi, duszek

You have now reached a high level of moral development [you rate a high H.Q., Humanity Quotient.] You 'get it' now. You want to be good, and you are conscientious about it!

As for your lunch-counter example, in a strict authoritarian institution - or nation - both you and the man to whom you give a lunch ticket would both be arrested: for rule violation. They would rationalize it by saying that they want to protect the students from a possible predator, from outside.

What is the lesson to learn? Be grateful that the school you attended was not that strict; thus students learned from the example of exceptions being made, that tolerance and inclusivity are good moral principles to live by.

There may be many ways to 'live the Good Life.' (Or, as Sam Harris would phrase it, many peaks in the moral landscape.) I don't believe in "one size fits all." I welcome it if someone has an alternative set of moral principles than mine - as long as theirs enhance the quality of life for one and all ...which I now see as the ultimate purpose of Ethics.

In my papers I have offered an Ethical system, with a set of moral principles. I am ready to drop it in a moment if a better system comes along! There are many good reasons not to cheat, and some of them are Systemic, some Extrinsic, and some Intrinsic. You, duszek, have Intrinsic reasons - and they are the best of all.

In my system of Ethics it is permissible to lie to save a life. To invest in naval POWER is morally questionable. Better is to join the resistance, the 'underground', and do some sabotage from within. Fight nonviolently. ...less casualties and fatalities that way!

You reveal, duszek, that you are in possession of a sensitive, educated conscience. I admire you for that.

[duszek]

Thank you prof for your kind comments.

Strictly speaking, you admire the positive impression that I have produced by my statement.

What I am really like nobody here knows ....

[Blaggard]

It's never "right" to do the wrong thing, but since ethics is such a grey area, sometimes doing the wrong thing is the rightest thing when it seems to be wrong, is obviously the most pragmatic and if you subscribe to pragmatism it is the best that can morally be done given the alternatives.

Which means sometimes yes doing the wrong thing can be right, and likewise the right thing can be wrong, it's a complex business as I said. I think a good rule of thumb is if you can feel good about something you have done, although that does tend to lead to odd conclusions but I think it's as a generalised statement worth the time, assuming you are an ethical person not a psychotic mad man.

You all know the questions would you derail a train to save 1 person if it meant 20 people on the train died, would you push a man off a bridge thus murdering him to derail a train and save one man, and in doing so condemn twenty to certain death, and so on so I wont bore you with them but you get the idea, roll on would you kill Hitler and so on...

At the end of the day, sometimes doing wrong is right, and doing right is wrong, aren't you glad you are moral at least? Although that may indeed be subjective. Apparently Hitler killed himself, probably got fed up of the Hitler parodies or somit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrHmcpRAZNs



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YLqC3DIgjY

Hitler is apparently quite philosophical about it which is nice, Brazil is not the best place to be if you are a German ex Nazi dictator but it's not the worst.

I kid.

[prof]

It's never "right" to do the wrong thing, but since ethics is such a grey area, sometimes doing the wrong thing is the rightest thing when it seems to be wrong, is obviously the most pragmatic and if you subscribe to pragmatism it is the best that can morally be done given the alternatives.

Which means sometimes yes doing the wrong thing can be right, and likewise the right thing can be wrong, it's a complex business as I said. I think a good rule of thumb is if you can feel good about something you have done, although that does tend to lead to odd conclusions....

Of all the definitions of Philosophy of which I am aware, the best one I have seen is this one by Robert S. Hartman, who says it is the continuous clarification and analysis of vague concepts. The philosophic activity would then be successful if it sharpens up concepts, making them less vague and ambiguous, more well-defined.

See my attempt to do that with the concept of morally-right action. Your initial paragraphs reminded me of it. You will find my definition - actually it defines "a good action" but it includes moral rightness - you will find it at the bottom of page 18 [located just above the caption in re norms] in BASIC ETHICS. - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

Was it at all helpful?

Can you improve upon it? What would make it better? You see, I am working to take some of the greyness out of the, to quote you, "grey area" in Ethics. That's why I wrote BASIC ETHICS. I felt ethical theory needed a more systematic approach. So I start with an axiom and make deductions from it. While I included practical applications, such as to voting, I omitted sex and violence - hence not too many will take the time to read it all the way through. If you do, tell me how I could have done a better job. {Of course, if it were a trade book it would be best to start out with a case study, or a moral dilemma - such as they do at the high-school Ethics Bowl -and show how the theory is used to solve it. That would make it longer, and I think it's long enough already.}

[prof]

A lot of bad - including moral badness (immorality) - is perpetrated in the name of good. Just because your intentions are good doesn't always mean you do good.

However, it seems to me that you are more likely to do good if, at least, your intentions are good. My system says nothing about intentions; they are extremely difficult to discern. It does point in the direction of you having Intrinsic norms for yourself: If you form the habit of seeking how to create value , seeking to make things better, in every situation where it becomes relevant, such as a person-to-person interaction, or an opportunity for you to express your constructive creativity, then you are far-more likely to add value to the world, and to yourself. You'll "do the right thing" intuitively, the way a master at Golf, a world-class champion, swings a golf-club.

Comments?