It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It’s good! But, maybe it an’t right?

I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’–we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.”

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.” The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.

2

I think most people are more like Jim wherever you go. This fact can be seen as an argument for utilitarian (and other consequentialist) theories of morality but I suggest that the damning criticism of unbridled utilitarianism is that it can obligate us to commit terrible acts for only a marginal increase in utility. It doesn’t have to be a whole platoon we’re saving, if the result is, overall, a slight increase in happiness, then we should commit the act, whatever it is.

What a lot of commas :S

3

there are lots of types of people who would take diferent actions for different reasons in that situation. what are you trying to acheive by making this thread ?

not me quite the oposite but then again im a ‘special case’

mentally damaged people and people that were bruoght up a certain way may not, many others such as selfish and ignorent people wouldnt give a fuck.

4

Don’t kid yourself. You’re not any different than anybody else.

5

hah i am, you dont know me. even though i meant special case as in the exeptions to “when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy”

6

Sympathy is a learnt behaviour. It’s not inherent, otherwise the spermatozoon that half-formed you would have had compassion of the scores that were dying and given its place to another one. And you wouldn’t be you.

7

I would have to agree with duder on this, Oni omega, We all feel like we’re a special case because we’ve witnessed our entire life and all the drama that it offers, yet everyone has their own troubles, the better they have it, the more likely they’ll be to complain about pettier things. This isn’t to say you haven’t had your own deal of trouble, I haven’t the slightest clue, but maintaining this idea that you’re a special case or a “tortured soul” only helps to commit you to this mindset. When this happens you’re allowing a singular negative action ripple on and effect your mindset well into the future. It’s best to let these occurances where they began, and move on (no matter how hard) or else the problem re occures (sp?) everyday as long as you let it.

well any way, sorry bout that rant.

also in regards to sebas comment I agree that sympothy is largley a learnt behavior but mostly in the ways expressed. If you cry in front of a child of 1 or 2 they will most likley at least show a sad deminer or try to cheer you up. My own son of 2 would drop what he was doing, get a concerned look on his face and rub my back asking “whats wrong? you crying?” when i was fake crying. SO i believe we are instilled with certain notions to love, consoul and be comforted from a ver young age. Also, a new born will become very ill or die if not shown the proper love and comfort.

My first post. Feel free to rip me a new one
Zatch