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

[HexHammer]

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?

Seems a bit selfcontraditory.

First off you say that just because your intetion is good, doesn't mean the result is good, which I can agree with, but then later you seem to contradict that.

You even say that your system say nothing about intetions which should be included, as many will delude themselves with good intend then care not about the result is good or bad.

[prof]

Thank you for adding value.

You recommend that my system would be improved by it talking about intentions as well as about self-delusion. I am making note of that. Thanks again for your constructive contribution.

[duszek]

A result can be good and bad at the same time.

Feeding animals with antibiotics is good for keeping diseases away from them and for producing meat for lots of people at low prices, but at the same time it is bad because these antibiotics get into people consuming this meat and bacteria become resistant to them and the antibiotics become useless. And the mutated bacteria are ready to kill.

[prof]

A result can be good and bad at the same time. ...

[You may be surprised to learn that Baruch Spinoza made the same observation in the 1660s. He used lively up-beat music as his example.]

This is precisely why R. S. Hartman, in his Axiom of Value, defined "x is a good C" rather than the oh-so-vague "x is good". By specifying the concept that x falls under, we now communicate what x is good for, or good as. Sometimes the context of the value judgment makes mentioning the concept unnecessary, as one assumes that the listeners (or readers) share an understanding with the speaker (or writer); but that assumption is often mistaken, and arguments, disputes, and spats result. These likely wouldn't arise if the specific class-concept (or the category) were deliberately mentioned.
E.g., Instead of just saying "That was good !" say "That was a good movie" or That was good popcorn" or "I enjoyed that good conversation we had about the film after we saw it." Or, "Everything about the time we spent together was really good !"

...You know what I mean?

[duszek]

"That was good popcorn !" could not be specific enough.

It was good for lifting my spirits for a second or two because of the pleasure while I was eating it. It was good because my purchase provided a job for someone who needed the job (and the health insurance combined with it) and could not get another one.

It was bad for my diabetes, heart, shape, my chances to impress the opposite sex and possibly many more.

[prof]

You are bringing out that: Everything has a price, and that we ought to make cost-benefit analyses. Do the benefits exceed the costs?

In doing this, you are thinking more like an Economist than an Ethicist.

I do agree that "We pay for what we get; and, also, we get what we pay for."


Even more important to remember is: It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!


How can I add value to the situations I find myself in?