board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Beneficial v right

Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 35 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 »
Author Message
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Beneficial v right
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 3:08 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
This topic came up in a thread in Turf and Anthriel asked that I start the topic. I hope she gets in here.

Essentially, what is beneficial and what is right can be two separate or contiguous things. My question is: does the benefit outweigh what is or is not right in a given situation?

I think what is right is right and is always right, whether it is beneficial or not should not matter. Here is an example: if it was beneficial (monetarily perhaps) for you to rat out your friend, would you do it? The situation doesn't even need to be as dire, it could be as simple as hurting another's feeling to mend a relationship with someone else.

Thoughts? Anthriel! You better post at least once! :cheers

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 3:39 am
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
Hmm, is that the topic? I thought it was doing what's right vs. following the rules. Either way, TED, thank you for starting it. I'm looking forward to reading all your ideas when I get back Wednesday. :)


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 4:43 am
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
I think everyone knows the "right" answer here.

However, just because I love to lay down the law, here it is:

It is NOT beneficial to do a wrong thing. Any apparent benefit is erased by the wrongdoing. If you don't feel it right away, you will. Guilt, regret, and remorse are what you get when you do wrong things, they are your "punishment", they are the consequence.

This reminds me of the Manwe thread that asked: Would you rather be faithful and be thought unfaithful or would you rather be unfaithful and be thought faithful, to your spouse?

If it is "right" to disobey the rules, then the rules are "wrong".

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 6:13 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
By the same token, sometimes the thing you have the "right" to do may not be beneficial, and may actually be harmful. I'm sure we can all think of an example from our recent history. :)


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:37 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Am I right to be confused? It doesn't seem beneficial.

So far we seem to have:

1. What is beneficial vs what is right
2. What is right vs the rules
3A. The wrong thing can't be beneficial
3B. The rules are wrong if beneficial is wrong
4. Right isn't always beneficial

(1) and (2) seem like 2 different discussions. (3) and (4) are conflicting opinions about beneficial, mentioned in (1), but (3) also addresses rules mentioned in (2).

Maybe I just need to go to bed.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 4:20 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
TED, thank you for starting this thread! Someday I'll be brave, like you are... ;)

Here are the snippets from Wilma's "privacy" thread in Turf which made me want to discuss this further:
Wilko wrote:
Eg the TORC mod forum was always understood to be private (for better reasons than this forum is, IMO), and yet things leaked out fairly often. I myself sometimes alluded to things posted in the mod forum to outsiders, if I thought it would be beneficial. I think most people understand that the enforcement of "privacy" is a judgement call.
I really don't understand this. If the mod forum discussions were known to be private, they should have been kept private. Period.

The enforcement of privacy is not a judgment call. It is an honorable pledge between two people. If one asks for privacy with their thoughts, the other honors that privacy.
Frelga wrote:
On a tangent, the dillema of beneficial vs. right or more precisely of following the rules vs. doing what is right and honorable has a very Tolkienesque ring to it. Think Eomer, Hama, Faramir and Beregond. Maybe some should start a thread on that in "teh bonas".
But sometimes following the rules IS right and honorable.

I understand your point, Frelga, and I agree with you in your examples. However, these were extreme cases, were they not? The examples that wilko was presenting, in keeping confidential information INSIDE a confidential forum, seem more black and white to me.
TED wrote:
I've always been a pragmatist, so "beneficial" does broadly equate to "right" in my book. You may well have a good point though, as far as the principles of the TORC mod forum go. As far as this board goes, I feel there is much less case, as the principles demanding absolute secrecy are nowhere set out.
I agree.

The only time recently I have knowingly shared a confidence was when a friend of mine confided that he was considering suicide. I did share that with his family, and there was an intervention with him... and he did not forgive me, for quite a while. ;)

I'm certain it has affected our friendship, and I still regret that. However, I feel like I did the right thing, in that instance. I think my lack of honor in not protecting his secret was secondary to my responsibility to try to protect his life.

So maybe this stuff isn't always black and white.

:neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 5:16 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
No stuff isn't always black and white.

The one missing ingredient in all of this is the human element. People do not read rules word for word and follow them word for word. They inject their own beliefs and philosophies into them. They interpret them according to who they are. This will always be the case.

For example:
When you (the collective you) are determining what to post and what you want to reveal, you need do so based on the fact that there are many levels and many intricate paths of friendship. To speak more plainly, each of us has a pecking order of where we place our values.
There are a couple of people here that I would place above all else, regardless of my beliefs. In other words, I would break any and all rules to come to their defense or aid. In other cases I would determine the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law, as I see it. Most people will do that.

In any circumstance, internet or real world, people should realize that once you relay any kind of information, you are no longer in control of it. That info will be disseminated as to how the person who gleaned the info sees fit. In the case of the TORC Mod forum for example, some will uphold the sanctity of that forum and the info discussed within above all else. Others will put friendship and their own ethos above that sanctity.
We all need to realize that each of us has a different agenda and will react differently. That is what needs to be taken into account everytime you open your mouth or type one word. That is the way life is, or rather that is the way people are.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 5:56 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I just typed out a big ol' answer and then deleted it, just because I've not had a lot of luck elsewhere today in making my thoughts clear; sometimes saying nothing is the better course than saying something confusing.

I'll try again later. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 9:50 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Just as it is by studying brain deficiencies and diseases that we understand the brain, more often than not it is the extreme case that provides the answer to these sorts of questions.

If we could go back in time, which of us would not go back and murder Hitler in cold blood in August 1939?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 9:54 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I wouldn't.

Even the wise cannot see all ends. Perhaps killing Hitler would have made way for an even bigger atrocity. Performing acts in the name of justice is a very dangerous thing.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 10:01 pm
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
Quote:
Perhaps killing Hitler would have made way for an even bigger atrocity
Butterfly effect, eh?


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 10:55 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
It might have made more sense to go back and murder his mother before he was born.

Hitler fit the moment, he didn't create it.

Still, history would be different. And we'd never know anyway.

How do we know that someone didn't go back in time and...........oh, let's say...........murder a man who would have murdered Napoleon?

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 11:51 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
I can second guess all I like about the effects of murdering Hitler, or his mother, or the guy who would have prevented someone else from murdering him. What I know for sure is that if I murdered Hitler, I would also be murdering the person that I am, and replacing her with someone else - a cold blooded murderess. The ends do not always justify the means. There are some means I cannot condone for any end.

Now, what, er, was the question, again?

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 11:57 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
... just following laureanna around...

And I think the question is something like... would you choose to do what is right, or choose to do what is beneficial?

I think you just said you would rather do what is right.

But I could be wrong.

:P


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 12:03 am
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
Surely every situation is different and it is therefore impossible to state with any real degree of certainty what one would or would not do.

And no, I am not begging the question.

I think at first glance that I would lean towards doing what I perceive as right. But I'm not positive.

I mean, there are no moral absolutes in this world, are there?
Not really.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 12:34 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
In a perfect society, our laws would all define "right" as that which is beneficial to the society and all its individuals. And a perfect society includes all individuals, and considers all individuals equally valuable. But we don't, and can't have that kind of society. Ours is much grayer, and fragmented, and hierarchal.

In gray areas, we would have to weigh relative benefits. Murdering Hitler might have greatly benefited some groups of people (if, say, the program of killing Jews was stopped), and harmed others (like, say, all those bystanders who were killed during the ensuing civil unrest). But the important thing here isn't body count. It's the fact that we are allowing murder in our society, for the purpose of social engineering. This degrades society too much, and as such, is fundamentally wrong and unbeneficial.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 1:33 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
If you do the thing that is wrong but beneficial, it will forever be tainted by the fact that it was wrong. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions - even if you're robbing the rich to feed the poor you're still committing robbery, and you and those who benefited from your acts are still answerable for that.

As far as Lidless's question goes, there is a distinct possibilty that by going back in time and murdering Hitler you would open the world up to an even worse fate, either immediately by opening up a vacuum an even more evil person would fill or in the long run by never allowing the world to learn the lessons of WWII. The suffering in the 20th century was terrible, but it did serve a purpose. It taught us how easy it is to turn a blind eye to evil. It taught us how much we have to lose. And it gave us the atom bomb, and showed us how we have in us the power to destroy our civilization as well as our souls. These are the lessons that are bathed in blood, enough blood that hopefully they will never be forgotten.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 11:43 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
laureanna wrote:
What I know for sure is that if I murdered Hitler, I would also be murdering the person that I am, and replacing her with someone else - a cold blooded murderess.
I sympathize with this, of course, but I cannot not agree with it. Knowing I had that power, by not using it I would personally be murdering millions of people.

Could something more horrid have taken his place? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The German war machine was stretched beyond its limits and probably killed as many people as it could have.

Ultimately though it was Hitler that led to the downfall of Germany as he made more and more blunders in his strategies - the biggest of course being to declare war on Russia.

So as several posters have stated, if a wiser person had become Chancellor and been more savvy, perhaps (mainland) Europe would have been condemned to a life of Fascism

Well no, I disagree. The oppressed and beaten tend to win out and overthrow a regime, especially when it is a sprawling empire - a coalition of different histories and cultures held together by tyranny and central strength. How many people died when the USSR ceased to exist?

These are all hypotheticals of course. When it comes to murdering Hitler I will have the following facts at my disposal:

The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related, Poland had 6 million deaths including 3 million Jews, roughly 20% of its prewar population, Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women, Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945, over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war, France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians, Italy lost 330,000 people, Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat, Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat, Romania lost 73,000 in combat, Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids, the United States lost 292,000 soldiers, the Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians, Australia lost 23,000 men in combat, Canada 37,000 soldiers, India lost 24,000 men in battle, New Zealand 10,000 and South Africa 6,000. These totals do not include the 6 million Jews and gypsies who perished in the Final Solution.

To think that this death toll is the safe route, well I couldn't live with myself if I sat back and did nothing.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 7:28 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
I saw an Outer Limits episode once where a time traveler was sent back to murder Hitler as an infant. She succeeded and left. A terrified servant replaced the dead infant with a similar baby bought from a Gypsy.... who was accepted as the original baby, and raised to become the Hitler we are familiar with. (or something like that, it's been a while)

I don't believe in paradox. If history could be changed, then it already WAS changed, and we are already living with the results.
I really can't imagine a mechanism for knowing what history should have been at the same time as knowing what it is.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 05 Apr , 2005 1:24 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
None of us have the power of foresight. If we did, we'd play the stock market and be stinking rich.

How many millions have died in Africa in the past 50 years thanks to wars and politically induced famines? Someone once asked me if I would kill Idi Amin if given the chance, and I said "no". Idi Amin is now dead, and the death toll continues to rise without his help. Would killing off any or all of the current "bad" leaders help?

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 35 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 »
Jump to: