Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason ever morally justified?

[doodab]

If it's morally justified then it isn't the wrong thing, by definition.

[EternalOptimist]

If it's morally justified then it isn't the wrong thing, by definition.

It's wrong to murder people. If you do, you go to jail.
In a war, it's right to murder people, if you dont, you go to jail

If you steal food, it's wrong and you go to jail
if your kids are starving and you dont steal food, you are wrong and deserve to go to hell


it's not easy. and playing with words dont make it any easier

[Gentile]

If it's morally justified then it isn't the wrong thing, by definition.

Only if you consider morality to be a fixed rather than a relative concept.

It's the old shades of grey, context and intent, and relative perspectives thing. E.g., all young children are pretty innocent, by and large. Ironically, this can make them relatively heartless compared to most adults when it comes to ethics.

There's a psychology experiment whereby children are asked what they'd do if someone they loved needed a particular medicine to save their life, but they had no money and the Chemist that stocked said medicine was unwilling to lend them some until they could afford to pay (by which time it would be too late to make a difference).

If you ask adults whether it would be morally justified to steal some of the medicine from the unsympathetic Chemist in that scenario, most would say "yes of course". Very young children, though, have a more fixed black and white moral code, and have been told from an early stage that it's "always wrong" to steal. So, most of them will say it must be wrong in that circumstance too, despite the drastic consequences of following a particular moral code too rigidly*.




* And to think that some of those very same children grow up to become lawyers, politicians and contractors.

[JaybeeInCUK]

It's wrong to murder people. If you do, you go to jail.
In a war, it's right to murder people, if you dont, you go to jail

Wrong. Murder is wrong, in or out of war. That's not "playing with words", that's fact.

Killing in war is also Murder, unless you are both:

1) A conscript
2) in a kill-now-or-be-killed-in-two-seconds situation.

[EternalOptimist]

Wrong. Murder is wrong, in or out of war. That's not "playing with words", that's fact.

Killing in war is also Murder, unless you are both:

1) A conscript
2) in a kill-now-or-be-killed-in-two-seconds situation.

bolks.

killing the enemy is mostly murder. firing shells from 20 miles away is pure murder.
dropping bombs
sniping
laying mines
launching an overwhelming attack
etc

but in a war situation, it's the right thing to do

[JaybeeInCUK]

Only if you consider morality to be a fixed rather than a relative concept.

It's the old shades of grey, context and intent, and relative perspectives thing. E.g., all young children are pretty innocent, by and large. Ironically, this can make them relatively heartless compared to most adults when it comes to ethics.

There's a psychology experiment whereby children are asked what they'd do if someone they loved needed a particular medicine to save their life, but they had no money and the Chemist that stocked said medicine was unwilling to lend them some until they could afford to pay (by which time it would be too late to make a difference).

If you ask adults whether it would be morally justified to steal some of the medicine from the unsympathetic Chemist in that scenario, most would say "yes of course". Very young children, though, have a more fixed black and white moral code, and have been told from an early stage that it's "always wrong" to steal. So, most of them will say it must be wrong in that circumstance too, despite the drastic consequences of following a particular moral code too rigidly*.

* And to think that some of those very same children grow up to become lawyers, politicians and contractors.

I put it to you that such rigidity likely stifles academic achievement, a pre-requisite for the first two, and also stifles enterprising spirit, a very large factor in the latter, thus a far smaller percentage of children so hindered, compared to the whole population, attain those professions.

I also put it to you that those parents who don't bother updating kids morals as soon as they are able to understand the finer aspect you quoted above (anywhere between ages 5 and 12) ought to be fined.

[EternalOptimist]

I put it to you that such rigidity likely stifles academic achievement, a pre-requisite for the first two, and also stifles enterprising spirit, a very large factor in the latter, thus a far smaller percentage of children so hindered, compared to the whole population, attain those professions.

I also put it to you that those parents who don't bother updating kids morals as soon as they are able to understand the finer aspect you quoted above (anywhere between ages 5 and 12) ought to be fined.

and I put it to you that you lift up off your seat a little.

because you are talking through your @rse and I can't hear you clearly

[xoggoth]

Morals. Who cares about morals?

We are aware (why, we do not know) of certain human needs, like happiness, and it makes sense to cooperate with others to provide that to the maximum number of people by whichever means work. That's it.

[EternalOptimist]

Morals. Who cares about morals?

We are aware (why, we do not know) of certain human needs, like happiness, and it makes sense to cooperate with others to provide that to the maximum number of people by whichever means work. That's it.

When I realised what a philosophical morass it was, at a young age. I decided to follow the utilitarian belief in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

if I was wrong. I'm sure God will be the first to let me know , when I snuff it

[Zippy]

Yes.

PS - Not interested in any navel gazing/hang-wringing debate. Thought that would save y'all some time