NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Give an example.

Would it be more morally acceptable to save a life in the attempt to kill someone, or kill someone trying to save a life?

Would it be more morally acceptable to save a life in the attempt to kill someone, or kill someone trying to save a life?
That depends. Were both or either of the posited outcomes the result of deliberate intention or where they both screw-ups?

Either way.

What I'm asking is which one holds more worth: intentions or actions?

isnt it always better to do the right thing?

having a good intention but fucking it up isnt as good as having a bad intention but accidentally getting things right.

Good point.

But I was speaking more morally than practially.

Good point.

But I was speaking more morally than practially.
oh

well

good intentions are good but results are more important.

and you have the factor of someone like george bush who WANTS a good moral result but wont do the things that might make that happen--like listen to those who think he is going in the wrong direction.

good intentions can mask a lack of moral integrity.

There's an old saying "Actions speak louder than words." I would say what you do is more important than what you intend to do. Results are what matters.

isnt it always better to do the right thing?

having a good intention but fucking it up isnt as good as having a bad intention but accidentally getting things right.

There's an old saying "Actions speak louder than words." I would say what you do is more important than what you intend to do. Results are what matters.

Still though, I think I'd feel more comfortable around the guy who broke my arm trying to help me than the guy who saved my life trying to kill me.

I think it's dangerous to throw all of our chips in the results basket.

"I put the fires out..."
"You made them worse!"
"WORSE...or BETTER?"

Still though, I think I'd feel more comfortable around the guy who broke my arm trying to help me than the guy who saved my life trying to kill me.

I think it's dangerous to throw all of our chips in the results basket.
i wouldnt invite him over to dinner but id rather be alive and whole than suffering a broken arm.

im sure that i could come up with examples where good intentions are much more important--especially if the bad stuff was unavoidable--but the question is vague so my answer is inspecific.

i wouldnt invite him over to dinner but id rather be alive and whole than suffering a broken arm.

Yeah, but the guy who saved you intended to kill you. What's to stop him from trying a second time?

im sure that i could come up with examples where good intentions are much more important--especially if the bad stuff was unavoidable--but the question is vague so my answer is inspecific.

Yeah, we don't have much to go on.

Without a doubt, right thing for the wrong reason.

There is no value in doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

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

The wrong thing for the right reason.

If I do the wrong thing for the right reason, it's an honest mistake: I believed in good faith that it was the right thing to do. But if I do the right thing for the wrong reason, the rightness of my act is immaterial: I would just as soon done a wrong thing, if my wrong reason called for it.

Agreed. The person who has good intentions but fails is infinitely better than the person who has bad intentions but ends up doing good.

The ends don't justify the means.

Depends what you mean. It is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason. But the person is better for doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

It is better to do nothing for no reason, but if you must do something, try to avoid reasons altogether. Even good reasons aren't good for you, as you only end up running down the clockwork in your head for no benefit.

Without a doubt, right thing for the wrong reason.

There is no value in doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

Yeah, think about that other old saying about roads to Hell being paved with good intentions.

There's a reason for those old sayings.

The guy who tried to kill you but inadvertantly saved your life instead - yeah, he may try to kill you again, but now you know and you're still alive. The guy who tried to save your life, but killed you instead, well, you're dead, regardless of his intention.

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

Whether or not a person is "bad", morally speaking, depends upon her motives; whether the world benefits or suffers depends upon her actions.

What I'm asking is which one holds more worth: intentions or actions?

The wrong thing for the right reason. Mostly because by "actions" you seem to mean consequences. The problem with consequentialism is the difficulty of knowing all the consequences of one's actions. The guy who tries to kill someone but inadvertantly prolongs that guy's may have saved the next Hitler's life. The guy who accidentally killed someone may have killed a serial killer.

What I'm asking is which one holds more worth: intentions or actions?

Please explain what you mean by "worth".

Well for the people around you, it's probably better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons

But in terms of individual morality, I would say that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons might be better.