If you think about it, it is actually a rather arbitrary way to make decisions. There are lots of other criteria just as valid as right vs wrong, maybe some more so. Why is this the final filter?
How about what is kind vs. unkind?
respectable vs. unrespectable?
constructive vs. destructive?
aesthetically pleasing vs. ugly?
stylish vs. gauche?
legal vs. illegal (this one’s interesting in that it replaces right and wrong quite a bit these days.)
Let’s say something is kind, respectable, and constructive. Wouldn’t that outway the fact that it was wrong?
Uhhhhh, Scylla, I have no idea WTF you’re talking about…perhaps you should clarify a bit.
Why do you think those traits you listed are inherrently mutually exclusive? If something is kind, respectable, and constructive, it most likely would be right, wouldn’t it?
Or are you trying to convery some sense of ethical relativism?
Do what, exactly? It’s nigh on impossible to argue the right/wrongness of an action, without an example to work from. As for using right or wrong being an arbitrary way to make decisions…it’s the only way we have, methinks. Let’s say we use kind/unkind, respectable/unrespectable, constructive/destructive, etc. as bases for decision. I think we’re STILL using right/wrong as the final filter. Is this right because it’s the kind thing to do? Is this right because it happens to be constructive?
And since we’re stuck with using right/wrong, just what ARE they, anyway? Does one go with the majority, or make an individual value judgement based on personal perception of the circumstances involved?
Sorry if this is kind of a semi-hijack, but (with all due respect) I feel that the OP is a bit ill-defined. Would you mind elaborating a little?
How about a fifty year old guy with no Health Insurance is diagnose with a terminal disease. To preserve his estate for his wife and children, and so that he doesn’t suffer the indignity of a long drawn out illness, he commits suicide.
Such an action may be kind, respectable, and constructive, but wrong.
The interesting thing about your example and, I would hazzard to guess, most every example is that it is BOTH kind and unkind. It is BOTH repectable and unrespectable. It is BOTH constructive and destructive. It is both legal and illegal. It is BOTH right and wrong.
How can it be all of those things? Because they’re opinions and can be interpreted however the person feels from whatever perspective he or she is coming from.
How can something be both legal and illegal? That doesn’t make sense, does it? Well, it does. If legal issues were black and white we would have no need for a courtroom. We could feed all the information into a computer and have it spit out a verdict. We don’t do that because the same act can be legal or illegal, and right or wrong, depending on how it’s looked at…or even who is looking at it.
Sometime back I watched a report on a couple of drug dealers operating out of a small, impoverished town. They funneled large amounts of their ill gotten gains back into the place, giving money to the poor, providing no interest loans, starting businesses, establishing charities, and generally being good guys.
Out of town, however, they imported and dealt illegal drugs, knocked off the occasional competitor, beat the crap out of others, skirted the law and happily kept people stealing from other people to get money to buy the drugs they sold, which the folks were addicted to.
The cops finally tracked them down and arrested them, slamming them in jail for many, many years, even though their entire town rose up to defend these ‘good boys’.
It was ‘wrong’ that they sold deadly dope. It was ‘right’ that they helped their town out.
We asked for examples. You gave:
‘How about a fifty year old guy with no Health Insurance is diagnose with a terminal disease. To preserve his estate for his wife and children, and so that he doesn’t suffer the indignity of a long drawn out illness, he commits suicide.
Such an action may be kind, respectable, and constructive, but wrong.’
OK, as matt_mcl said, you should define the ethicality of an action by reference to its consequences.
Is the suicide kind?
It puts the ill man out of pain, but it will still cause unhappiness to his family and friends. I would call it merciful.
Is the suicide respectable?
Understandable, yes, but surely not respectable. At least one church says it’s a sin. You say ‘my daughter’s a teacher’ or ‘I work at a local charity’ to be respectable. You don’t say ‘my husband committed suicide’ in the same way. Friends don’t reply ‘I’m so sorry’ and start crying when you tell them something respectable.
Is the suicide constructive?
Here I would call it an unfortunate necessity. It is true that long-term medical care can be ruinously expensive. But this does not improve the family’s position. It just stops it getting worse (and rules out any chance of benefitting from medical advances).
Is it wrong?
I would not condemn anyone who took such a terrible step, provided they have agreed it with their family. You could say that society has failed this family (depending on the availablity of health insurance).
So I don’t think your example is kind, respectable or constructive. Personally I don’t think it’s wrong either.
I think that what people are trying to say is that “Right” and “Wrong” are not, in and of themselves, absolutes.
Some actions which we would call wrong may have extenuating circumstances, some actions we call right may be done for reasons which fall far short of altruism.
I think that Right and Wrong all depend on what side of the fork you’re on (vague reference to cannibalism).
It’s a funny world we live in, people, and there are very few, if any, absolutes.
Even murder can be “right.” Disagree? If someone rapes your sister/lover/daughter/friend and gets away with it, kill the sonofabitch. That’s the right thing to do, and I don’t care WHAT the law says. Let’s face it: at times, the legal system can be one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.
If your lover/friend is acquitted of rape, and someone kills them and gets away with it, kill the sonofabitch. That’s the right thing to do, and I don’t care WHAT the law says.
Let’s face it: at all times, the lynch mob is one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.
I’m not saying otherwise! I know as well as the next guy (as long as the next guy doesn’t live in a shack in Montana) that laws are in place because anarchy is the fastest route to social collapse.
But about the vigilante scenario I proposed: What if you walked in on the guy doing it? And because his lawyer was better than yours, he got off? You can’t tell me that a situation similar to that has never arisen.
At any rate, perhaps that was a bad example. But to say that laws are based upon what’s “right” is just plain silly.
a better (and less extreme) example: ever try to order a burger medium-rare? It can’t be cooked that way any more because it’s illegal.
But a medium-rare burger isn’t a right/wrong issue. It’s personal preference.
Most fast food places will not cook a hamburger anything other then well done. If you go to some place like Fudruckers, Chilis, or Bennigans you can order a hamburger rare, medium, or well done.
And what if your girlfriend/wife actually picked him up in a bar and then, when you walked in on them, claimed rape? And then you went out and murdered him because of her lie?
Not just “perhaps.” Any example based on vigilantism would be a bad example.
I do believe you’re wrong. I don’t have any information handy (and I just did a quick search at snopes, finding nothing), but it seems to me that there is no such law. As I recall, there may be a law requiring that you be notified that eating meat cooked this way is risky, but that’s a different issue. I also seem to recall that a number of restaurants started refusing to cook meat this way because of potential lawsuits, but again, that’s not a law.
Now, if you have a citation to back up the claim, I’d like to see it.
