Moral dilema, which is better?
 

I'm curious; in your opinion is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason?

Re: Moral dilema, which is better?
 

<font color="plum">That would depend a lot upon the situation and what actions were regarded as the "right thing" and "wrong thing" to do.

In generic terms, I would say it is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for the right reason. Having good intentions is great, but if your actions make a situation worse rather than better, then it is better to do nothing, even if you did the action for the right reason.

Likewise, if someone does the right thing for the wrong reason (self glorification, greed, etc), their actions still improve the situation. We may not approve of their motivation, but we can at least be happy they did the "right thing" anyway.

Again, having some hypothetical examples might provide a clearer picture and some better discussion.</font>

Re: Moral dilema, which is better?
 

Depends on what it is.

Re: Moral dilema, which is better?
 

I think that most of what we do could be considered "the wrong thing" when viewed from another's perspective. Killing a person who's going to hurt your family may be right for your family, but wrongs the dead person, and is objectively "a wrong" even if from your perspective, the lesser of two evils.

Similarly, if we save a mouse from being eaten by a cat, we wrong the cat in doing right by the mouse.

What is right and wrong therefore can change.

A person's motives are, for me, everything, and I define "right" and wrong or "good and evil" as:

Good is pursuing another's benefit at the expense of one's own agenda.
Evil is pursuing one's own agenda at the expense of another's benefit.

A parent who cares for a baby is oftentimes sacrificing their own agenda to keep the infant alive.

Taken to extremes, Hitler harmed millions pursuing his own agenda, while Mother Theresa sacrificed her life to help others.

So, if in the process of laying down her life and trying to help people Mother Theresa steps on a few toes, maybe even causes the death of someone she was trying to help, her intentions balance things out.

Conversely Hitler may benefit people by building wonderful roads, but they were built to expediate movement of troops... how many people would have preferred the roads never got built at all?

I think intentions are everything. If my wife burns a meal she's lovingly prepared, I'd much prefer to eat it, than eat a wonderfully cooked meal made in spite and anger. That would cause indigestion actually.

But that's just my 42c

P.S. "Perfect Love covers a multitude of sins"

Re: Moral dilema, which is better?
 

Do whatever maintains the Balance, grasshopper.