Which is better:
Doing right things for the wrong reason
-or-
Doing wrong things for the right reason
...
*brain stalls*
...I really have no idea. 
Maybe the first one?
The second one, by far.
Quote:
Doing right things for the wrong reason
-or-
Doing wrong things for the right reason
Neither of those phrases means anything specific to me. Either one of them could be interpreted in several different ways. You're going to have to clarify each one if you want any sort of meaningful response.
It depends on what the specifics are, but generally I'd go with the right things for the wrong reason.
People running a soup kitchen because, let's say they're cannibals and want to fatten up some meat, well, that's a right thing as long as they are stopped from killing the people.
Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is too often an excuse for oppression and war. To reverse the other example let's say somebody eats a person because they have a religion that tells them doing so would send that person to heaven.
You might notice that I've defined "right thing" by the results of the action. That definition will influence what people say. But since you're comparing it against the person's justifications it seems logical. You asked which is better, not which is moral, so I'd say the result of the action is the only thing that matters in answering your question.
I'm using outlandish examples because it's hard to define your 2 answers by any realistic situation. Classic moral dilemmas seen as wrong for a right reason like murdering a future killer or torture to save lives could be interpreted as either of the above. You'd have to actually KNOW that such an act would be pre-emptive in order to call it a right reason; otherwise it's just rationalization.
Dirk, how specific does it need to be? O.o would you rather see someone do something bad, but for a good reason, or see someone do something good, but for a bad reason?
Quote:
Dirk, how specific does it need to be?
Specific enough to be intelligible.
Quote:
would you rather see someone do something bad, but for a good reason
This could be interpreted in multiple ways. Mostly, it's a question of the proportionate "badness" of the act and the "goodness" of the motive.
For instance, it could refer to a debatably reprehensible act which is done to obtain a good effect (ie, cheating on a test because your aunt will be murdered unless you pass).
Or, it could refer to an undeniably reprehensible act done to obtain a good result (ie, killing a man who intends to steal a ten-dollar bill from your aunt's desk).
In each example, the motive is "good" (preventing someone from murdering your aunt from being murdered or robbed of ten dollars) and the resulting action is "bad" (Cheating, killing), but I think you'll agree they're two completely different types of situation.
Quote:
or see someone do something good, but for a bad reason?
Similar problems apply here, depending on the "act" and the "reason," as well as the effects.
The original posted question is silly. If you want a good, relevant answer, the question can't be that general.
...They sound pretty interchangeable to me. Then again, I'm not bright.
Okay, I'll give a situations for each
Wrong but for right reasons:
A poor man's wife is deathly ill. He finds out that a pharmiscts has a medicine that could cure his wife. He finds out, however, that he doesn't have enough money for it. So at night, he will try to break in and steal it.
Right but for wrong reasons:
A rich man is attending church. Soon, it is time to give offering. The man decides to give the church a hefty check. However, he will know that this will decrease HIS tax input for his selfish reasons while it probably cause the church to pay more taxes.
Well, I don't know. Both have benefits, be they moral or physical. But, I suppose there's also a bit of backlash for each, as well...
I'll go with being "wrong for the right reasons" as the better of the two.
I'd LIKE to do bad things for good reasons-
But I tend to do good things for bad reasons =P.
But because of bad reasons, people can do great things-
Though terrible things can sprout from wonderful reasons.
it's all backwards =P
Quote:
Wrong but for right reasons:
A poor man's wife is deathly ill. He finds out that a pharmiscts has a medicine that could cure his wife. He finds out, however, that he doesn't have enough money for it. So at night, he will try to break in and steal it.
Whether that's "wrong" at all is arguable.
So basically the question you really mean to ask is: "do the ends justify the means?", am I correct? If so, then in my opinion there's no general answer tho that question and it comes down to the circumstances and proportionality.
Generally, I think "right thing for the wrong reasons" is preferable based on my own perceptions of "right" and "wrong."
There's a slight problem with your example though, SonicV2. Churches are tax-emept. It doesn't matter how much money a church raises.
Dirk, "right" and "wrong" will always be debateable. It is not the same thing as "ends justifying the means" because the question specifically asks about "right" and "wrong." The "ends justifying the means" has very little to do with "right" and "wrong." "Ends justifying the means" deals with what a person is willing to do to achieve a result. While morality can be a part of that discussion, it's not required. "Right" and "wrong" are morality issues regardless--and morality differs from person to person.
My point exactly: I can't offer any real opinion on such a vague question, because it's full of variables. Right and wrong are always debatable, but some cases more than others. There's also the proportionality to consider: the rightness or wrongness of the act to the rightness or wrongness of the reason. Even then, the appropriateness of the proportionality is debatable.
In other words, since right, wrong, and the balance between them are a matter of degree, and those degrees are debatable, I couldn't possibly answer the question.
Actually, I disagree that you couldn't answer the question. Proportion or degree is debateable as well. In fact, there's precious little in this world that isn't debateable. The fact that things are debateable is the whole point in asking questions and having a discussion. Similar to anyone that chooses (or chose) to do so, you'd answer the question based on your own biases. Of course, based on those biases, you chose not to answer the question--which is also your (and anyone else's) rightful choice to make. However, all choices made are based on our own biases, not a reflection on just the question itself.
Right, but in order to make a judgment on a case like this, I'd first have to know more specifics so I could:
1) Determine the degree to which the reason is right/wrong, and determine the degree to which the action is right/wrong
2) From this, determine the proportionality of right/wrong
3) Pass judgment on the situation based on the proportionality.
But without specifics, I can't even get past the first step.
For example, look at my post above. Both examples are "Doing wrong things for the right reason," because the act is bad but the intent is noble. But because of the varying degrees (at least, I see the degrees as being variant), the proportions are different and therefore, my judgment is different. I think cheating on a test to save a life is all right, while killing someone to prevent them from tripping someone else is not. You may disagree. But in my opinion, one case of "wrong thing, right reason" has proven different from another case of the the same.
So, the only real answer I can give is that there is no definitive, one-size-fits-all answer. There rarely is for any serious moral or ethical question.
I'm gonna have to go with doing wrong things for the right reason.
Can't answer, because dependent on the situation, I would most like make a choice that would lead me to a conclusion-and consequences that I would undergo. Sometimes, doing wrong things for the right reason is inherently wrong, as is doing right things for the wrong reason.
So yeah, I need specifics before I could begin to decide 😮
In other words, I agree with Dirk.
Wrong reasons is a much more ambiguous area than wrong things.
Hence, I'd go for the first one.
Quote:
I can't offer any real opinion on such a vague question
Actually I would say the question is surprisingly sharp. What it does, is it partitions us into deontologists, and the rest.
Whoever believes in absolute moral standards simply chooses the second option. Deontology: the moral basis of the action entirely justifies the said action, because adopting a deontological ethical system involves accepting that it is the _reasons_ that are important.
Those who choose the other option, then, are simply arguing for the utilitarian view. That seems pretty obvious. Utilitarian: Ends justify the means.
And then, now that we have the definitions out of the way, the main point of this post: What about people who refuse to commit to answering the question? I submit that they are indistinguishable from the second group of people, because it takes an active commitment to subscribe to a deontological system of ethics. You're either purely on the side of princple, or you're not. If you ever find yourself questioning the logic of whatever ethical principles because of the circumstances, then your principles are necessarily subordinate to the circumstances. That in turn implies that you are _not_ the first kind of person. You simply have a variable threshold above which you shed your appearance as a rigidly ethical person and revert to concluding that the ends justify the means.
This is like deciding whether to kill one human to save another human. What happens when we change the scale and it's now a question of killing one to save a billion? You can no longer say that you belong in the first category if your answers differ between the first and second cases.
We are Generation Y, hardened realists and cynics, us children of the Internet. Say it loudly and proudly with me : UTILITARIAN
Pundit, you just rock. Thank you. ^_^
And what if you're a Skeptic?
Because now that I think of it, even if the question gave two specific examples, I'd probably still fail to choose one option over another because I'm skeptical of either of the two views you presented.
Amendment to Pundit: You would not necessarily be a Utilitarian, but you would be Consequentialist. Utilitarianism is simply the most popular consequentialist doctrine.
Also, I would suggest that the question creates a major dilemma for a Virtue Ethicist, since it would not be immediately clear which course of action most appropriately follows the virtues the individual seeks to pursue. What of the Egoist? Or an individual not concerned with morality? The lack of commitment to either side does not confirm that such a person is a consequentialist, let alone a utilitarian, since there are far more systems of morality than just deontology and consequentialism, it's just that these two are obviously opposite and generally well known.
As for the original question, a deontologist would claim that there is no such thing as doing the wrong thing for the right reason, since if it is the right reason the thing cannot be considered wrong, and similarly for right things for wrong reasons, hence the question is already somewhat biased towards a consequentialist approach, since I believe they would be more inclined to say that reasons are involved in the intention of the outcome, but the outcome itself is more important - and hence you can do right or wrong things for wrong or right reasons. That said, I would probably prioritise having the right reason over doing right, since right reason is liable to cause more good in the long run than wrong reason.
