I watched "Dark Knight" last night, and it made me think of something that I also ran into watching "Burn Notice" on hulu.tv. (If you're not familiar with it, "Burn Notice" is the story of a spy who is cut loose from the government and is trying to figure out why. Nice mix of humor and action...but I digress.) The question that occurred to me is this: Which is worse - doing a bad thing for a good reason, or doing a good thing for a bad reason?
In "Dark Knight", Batman breaks some pretty serious rules, in order to stop the bad guy. It's the whole 'do the ends justify the means' question. But, that got me to thinking also about the flip side - if you do something good, for the wrong reasons, does it detract from the good?
If there is a really bad guy in your neighborhood, preying on the weak (mugging elderly, dealing drugs to kids, etc.) and you just can't get the police to do anything about it, to what lengths would you go to remove this scourge from your neighborhood? Would you try to drive him out, using an escalating plan of action - spiking his tires, threatening him with violence, firebombing his empty house? Or, maybe you frame him by planting a large quantity of drugs in his car? If you succeed, you've definitely improved the lot of your neighborhood, but can you really say that you've accomplished good by doing bad things?
Conversely, say I have a relative who is in severely declining health. This person is not long for the world, but wishes to live out their remaining days at home, surrounded by familiar things. So, I take a leave of absence from my job, move in with this person - reading to them, feeding them, bathing and caring for their most basic needs. On call, 24 hours a day - wiping chins, changing diapers, sincerely trying to make their last days as comfortable as possible. Now, the sincerity is key here - this is being done without a grudging thought at all. However, the only reason I am doing this is that this relative has A LOT of money, and I figure that if I do this, I will be generously rewarded in their will. This act of kindness is not done out of love, or charity but for personal gain. So, does the good that is done, the care and consideration given to this dying person any less good if the motives are selfish?
So, do the ends justify the means? Are bad motives redeemed by good actions?
(UPDATE: Apropos of nothing...http://tinyurl.com/9azomt)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
86 comments:
Ms. F, I think your question's difficult if you face it as a moral problem.
Turn it into vulgar marxism, however, and--hey--no sweat.
The patient is involved in the transaction, too. I mean the patient knows the big bucks in the will will draw loyalty. Indeed, one justification for the whole inheritance scheme that it helps insure support for old people with money. (If folks couldn't pass all their money on, they'd have no power left at the end of life.)
[Of course, the inheritance scheme doesn't help the majority of old people, who have no money, but that's why it's unfair and should be abolished. Sorry.]
So you're both capitalists. Compassionate people, too. But capitalists.
As to the difficult moral question, the closest I can get to answering it is this: I raised two kids, with love. If I had raised them exactly the same way, but without love, would they have been as well off? I have to say, no.
oh, and I'm quite sure Thor doesn't look like that guy in your update.
All living things are selfish, even seemingly altruistic acts are motivated by self interest on some level, usually the need to put your genes, or those of your species into the next generation.
The answer to FH's question is obvious. Batman is better than the caretaker because he benefits me the most.
From an objective viewpoint, there isn't any good or evil in the universe, only organisms that succeed or fail.
My WV is cogive, seems somehow appropriate.
I have been contemplating the same things, FH! I noticed during my sister's illness that sometimes her husband would choose something based on obviously selfish motives, however it turned out to be the right thing for HER.
I realized then that sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. So, does it matter that it is the wrong reasons? That the motivations are essentially self-serving? Or does it really matter that the right thing is done?
I think that the right thing is the right thing and that motivations aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Personal motivations are just that, personal.
Now, if you inadvertantly cause harm in the midst of doing what you consider to be the right thing - that's slightly different, isn't it? I knew a man who was a muslim (not a strict muslim by any means, but he still considered himself one). And he had a nephew who was killed by another muslim in an event orchestrated to cause death. When this friend confronted one of the perpetrators (who was also known to him), the perp said "to make an omlette, you have to break some eggs."
Or what about reactionaries who bomb abortion clinics? They are absolutely certain they are doing the right thing! Or soldiers sent off to war. Some of them perform incredible acts of kindness and mercy, but they are also sent to create havoc and destroy things.
Unless something egregious is happening in front of me, I try to mind my own business. Otherwise, I stick to the motto in my bio, "always try to choose good over evil." It's hard. There are so many small daily choices. I've actually quit jobs over things that sat with me poorly. Marketing was the WORST.
YC - but, what if Batman is trampling on your civil rights at the same time he is benefitting you?
There once was a Yankee Crumpet
Who told a blog host to go 'lump it'.
He returned in disguise,
she did not realize -
until his i.d. he did trumpet.
"usually the need to put your genes, or those of your species into the next generation"
.
Vulgar darwinism is worse than vulgar marxism, isn't it? Crumpet, you must be young. Believe me, at a certain point in your life that front part of your brain will shake off the absolute control of the glands that drive you now.
No Lefty, I'm in my fifties. My comment assumes there is evolution without god. If there is a god, then perhaps there is good and evil, but the rest of my comment is valid, because we know evolution is the driving force behind life. Sue me, but I prefer my vulgar libido to your asexual intellectualism.
BTW FH, I loved the poem, although I'm more of a floutist than a trumpeter.
Crumpet, why does the existence of good and evil depend on the existence of god? That's not sensible.
As to your personal, well, assumptions, let us say, you're wrong. Apparently I was too.
adieu
Lefty, if there is no god, good and evil can't be objectively defined. Humans define them based on our own selfish terms. I also don't believe in free will. How we react to external stimulus is predetermined by our genetic makeup.
Now this isn't the same as saying people shouldn't attempt to define good and evil. It helps us adapt to our environment if we get it right, or enables a more evolved organism to replace us if we don't. In the end, it's all good IMO
Well, moving up a bit, if you find value in dialectics (beyond the simplicity of vulgar marxism), I think you discover that there is NO objective anything.
In fact, it seems to me that if you deeply believe in evolution as the central life force that same conclusion would follow. Everything changes. Constantly.
But we do make society.
I've spent some in the world fighting against what's worst in human nature and for what's best.
I don't think some biological desire to see my kids procreate prompted my commitment.
By the way, you, Crumpet, did you celebrate Obama's election? I did. Just by way of background.
wv: habatim
no. I don't fight any more.
Hell yeah, I celebrated Obama's election, partied like it was 1999.
I agree with Lefty; this is a difficult question. That's why I waited so long to answer...
I think it's a balance of Means vs. Ends. Regardless of the nobility of your goal, if the Means you use to achieve it become so morally heinous as to overshadow whatever your End was, your victory will be Pyrrhic in nature.
What makes it difficult is WHO decides what is a justifiable Means to an End? Everyone might draw the line in a different place. Remember Malcolm X and "by any means necessary?"
Even those who use a religious basis for their decision might interpret those religious edicts differently. Abraham probably believed in the 6th commandment, but was ready to kill his son Isaac when so instructed, because he believed the 'payoff' would justify infanticide. And if all ethics are situational, then all bets are off and you can use any Means you like.
I do agree that if the End you achieve is negative, although your Means and intentions were positive, you still boobed.
I didn't really like The Dark Knight...
Two thoughts:
1) This is exactly the dilemma I found myself in when I was compelled to post on SFGate that 'Palestinian rights end at Israeli noses'.
2) Where would the American conscience be without hollywood to nudge it toward the concession stand?
3) I always have an extra thought... welcome back, Yogi. :)
FH, is it just me, or is this a rather bizarre comment by your new "husband". It indicates a whole host of psychological problems, mainly control issues. You might want to rethink this marriage.
FYI twinfan, my real first name is very close to this screen name. It's spelled and pronounced differently, but is in fact related to how the word was coined.
"Yogi: I liked your casting." WELL! No way my wife is Mariska Hargitay. I need someone to sleep with, my daughter doesn't. FH will be played by Diane Lane ;-). Or she may play herself on screen...
Other notes on the casting: I had Yogi more as John Hillerman ( if you must be younger I'll let you have David Hyde Pierce), LaSalle is definitely Spacey, I'll brook no opposition on that; Xoot will be portayed by Harry Hamlin, SuzaGoob will get her wish ( or rather Mr. Goob will) and be played by Toni Colette... none of this is negotiable, it's my film and John Lithgow will NOT be in it. Upon further review I've decided on Ed Harris.
Posted By: twinfan | January 04 2009 at 09:22 PM
When he was 17, my brother was in a major motorcycle accident. Permanent brain damage. One thing you learn from people who get permanent brain damage, be it stroke, collision, et.al. what the person does (when they come out out of the coma) is pursue whatever was the most important thing in their lives before it happened.
As I said, my brother was 17. All he cared about was sex-drugs-n'-rock'n roll. So he spent (this happened in 1978) the next 15 years pursuing this.
So, my dilemna was, do I let this brain damaged guy who I love so much continue to smoke dope as much as he wants? Knowing that in his present state, this is provoking possible mental and physical repurcussions? Because he has so little joy in what's left in his limited abilities in life? Or do I try to increase the quality of his current existence even though there's no chance he'll ever improve? He's chronic and what is he, will always be he.
After 30 years, I now know he's better off without drugs.
But it took about 25 years to realize that.
Did I harm him by allowing the little joy he had in life by continuing to help him get stoned?
Or would it have been an entirely different, yet still chronic, situation if I had insisted (and my Mom as well) that we cut him off completely.
This is something I will never know.
Sorry to bore you all. But this topic brought it to my mind.
Ted, You hit on the real issue perfectly. If we're decent people we do the best we can do under the circumstances. Our motives are always mixed. We may learn as we go along. The best of us pay attention along the way and try to improve or, at least, figure out what happened.
Your brother was lucky to have you as his brother. Hope the rest of the family was as caring.
FH -- I didn't like this latest Batman movie at all. Nasty nihilism of that sort would never gain purchase. The entire premise was a false evil. We have real evils to deal with. The Dark Knight was a bad joke. And it's a bad starting point for an ethical discussion, IMHO.
xootie- it's because of the way "Dark Knight" reflected some abuses of power by the current administration, that it brought the idea to mind.
If a bad movie inspires a conversation about ethics, does that negate the worthwhile nature of the discussion? (I smell a topic for my next post! lol)
Well, if we get Leon Panetta supervising the CIA we'll see fewer ends-justify-the-means tragedies, like Gitmo, but that stuff will never really end.
Hey, does anyone here think Leon P. actually will get approved (or confirmed, whatever the term is)?
xootsuit, thank you for the kind words. And yes, at least my mom was as caring if not a wee bit more trepidatious. The rest tried their best but gave up completely after, at tops, 6 months. So now it's just me and mom. Doing what we can.
`
As for Panetta, my thoughts are the same for him as they were for voting for Obama.
I think "experience" is overrated when one has a touch of smarts in one's melon.
That being said, and I'm going to play devil's advocate here just a little...being in charge of the CIA takes a certain amount of covert savvy. The world is a mean and dangerous place and there's no way a milquetoast could be in charge of such a volatile and nasty organization as the CIA.
It may not take torture to be successful, it may not take abuse, it may not take a penchant for sadism...but it takes a cynic's attitude, or really empathy and a way to reasonably, and here's the key word, "manage" such in the absolutely crazy world we live in.
These are scary times and they're only getting scarier.
TedSpe, did you happen to catch 60 Minutes on Sunday? Torture is history. There is a computer program that can analyze MRI scans with amazing accuracy, literally read our minds.
I disagree with you about these being scary times. Trying to kill a saber-toothed tiger with a stick, now that's scary.
Not if it's a *really* big stick
If you didn't like The Dark Knight you will absolutely loathe Righteous Kill. Don't let the cast fool you, it's got all of the nasty nihlism of TDK without a Ledgeresque performance to redeem it. Ugh!
Do watch The Tudors though if you get a chance. Jonathan Rhys Meyers knows how to do nasty nihlism and there is always Thomas Moore's character to balance things out a bit.
Oops, I didn't realize nihilism has a third "i". Sounds counter-intutive to me.
It's like kundalini just sitting there.
wow, tedspe, I'm so sorry to hear about your brother. But your story does bring to mind the enablers of lots of addicts. (and I'm not passing judgement here, I've been an enabler of all sorts - and it's a tough situation to be in).
Your story reminds me a bit of the stories I see on Discovery Health and sometimes on Intervention about the people who have 700 lbs to lose. Of COURSE they can't get out and get their own food, someone has to bring it to them. And these are people who love and care about them. But they want to ensure that the person, who gets so little out of life because they are bedridden and never leave the house, are able to enjoy the thing they love most. In this case, it is food.
I so completely empathize with that dilema that I know I would have to work very hard not to fall into it myself. And if it were a beloved sibling I would probably do it anyway in an effort to make them feel loved and give them whatever small pleasure is available to them - even if I knew it was also killing them.
I wish you good luck with your brother.
Thank you Mindful Life. And just to be clear to everyone here, though it's probablt not necessary :), I was not trying to tell a sob story to milk sympathy, I just thought the situation applied to this thread on, perhaps, an extremely personal level.
But he's comfortable, relatively occupied and as happy as can be expected right now. Also drug free (not counting nicotine, caffeine and prescripted meds) for 5 years now.
Thanks, again
Uh, here's an option: try practicing doing the right reason for the right reason. It helps to have a conscience.
That would be try doing the right thing for the right reason.
Anonymous - I will file your response under 'missing the point entirely'. This is merely a philosophical discussion, not a request for permission to misbehave...
Why should there be any discussion? One should always make an effort to do the right thing for the right reason. It's just plain stupid and a waste of time not to.
I mean it's so typically liberal to try and compartmentalize behavior...and try to find nuances in unjust actions. There are none. If you knowingly do the right thing for the wrong reason, or vica-versa, you essentially negate either action. The only positive action is to do the right thing for the right reason...if you want a positive result.Period.
One could try thinking of someone other than one's self, for a change. Or at least considering the impact of one's selfish behavior on others or the world. Just an idea. But then again, I'm sure another anonymous opinion would be just be simply "filed away".
That wasn't me. Anonymous one. That was the hidden anonymous. He strikes now and then. When you least expect it.
A conscience? You mean like Jiminy Crickett? Or is it the voice of god?
.
My word, ever heard of the superego? You think that's what should determine your important decisions, without further reflection or counsel?
It's often impossible to know what's "right" if you're really paying attention.
You mean like 'hidden anonymous', right, Zoot?
Think of how much freedom one could have if they were hidden anonymous...double freedom!
I said 'knowingly'.
Religion is usually a good way to establishing a moral foundation. Using common principles there is no question about right or wrong in a group unless renegades decide to reinterpret things. That's where the confusion comes in for many. In my religion change is slow, which I think is a good thing. We're also taught from day one to develop our conscience.
Well, my religion's different. We're taught to open our minds and our hearts.
I need grammar conscience.
to establish
May I ask what religion you belong to?
xootsuit said...
Well, my religion's different. We're taught to open our minds and our hearts.
January 8, 2009 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...
May I ask what religion you belong to?
January 8, 2009 9:39 PM
I'm sorry, anon gina, but that says it all.
That doesn't say anything. And who cares who I am? I prefer the freedom of anonymity. I could never stand the thought of being or becoming famous like some people who clamor for it and spend their whole lives trying to establish some crazy idea of immortality when in reality it takes others to become immortal...and those people ultimately decide your fate, not you. Just. Not. For. Me.
Why are you afraid to own up to your faith?
I mean, what kind of a moron takes a leave of absence from their job based on something that's not guaranteed in writing? If you don't do it for the satisfaction of helping someone--a relative-- or pure goodwill and with the expectation that you will or may get nothing in return, you're gonna be one mighty bitter person if you wasted all that time and got zilch on a gamble, eh?
wv:debache. Miss Spelled, but how fitting.
Anonymous brings up a good point through its posts. That is, is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons equivalent to doing the right thing for the right reasons simply because religion has replaced conscience, empathy and common sense? And since all religions are not the same, can we conclude that it is Anonymous's religion that has failed it?
Is this the real you or the anonymous you?
Judy Blume's latest book: "Are you there God? It's me, Anonymous."
That's a must read, ferret. After you've seen the film, of course.
Ginanonymous, please pass judgement on this. Did this man or his doctor commit murder?
Pregnant Man Carries His Twin for 36 Years Due to a Rare Medical Occurrence Called Fetus in Fetu
May 07, 2007 by Aly Adair
Sanju Bhagat was self-conscious his whole life because his belly was as big as a pregnant woman. The 36-year old Indian man was rushed to the hospital with abdominal problems one evening in 1999. Doctors thought he had a giant tumor that was pressing on his diaphragm causing shortness of breath. After several tests, including a CAT scan, did not confirm their initial diagnosis, they decided to operate immediately. What doctors found was horrifying - Bhagat appeared to be pregnant with a fetus that had been living in his belly for 36 years. (view a video here - caution: this is very graphic)
What happened to Bhagat is a medical occurance called fetus in fetu and there are only 88 cases reported in the literature as of June 2000. This is the sort of thing you would expect to see in tabloid magazines and know that it really isn't true. But, it is. It is a rare malformation of twin pregnancy where the parasitic twin installs and grows in the body of its living host partner. Four of 88 reported cases have been described in patients 10 years of age or older, including one reported case in a 17-year-old male adolescent. Fetus infetu occurs relatively equally in male and female patients, and usually occurs in the early stages of pregnancy.
Fetus in fetu most likely represents a monozygotic diamniotic twin that implants itself and grows within the body of its normal karyotypically identical sibling, referred to as the host. The leach fetus can live like a parasite, by attaching an umbilical cord to the host's blood supply until it grows big enough that it begins to harm the host. It is common for both twins to die before birth because of the strain of sharing the placenta. But in Bhagat's case, he survived the birth and amazingly supported the life of the leached fetus for 36 years without anyone suspecting a problem. Everyone just thought he had a big stomach because he never suffered any pain.
They both should die, in my humble opinion. Obviously the condition was due to prolonged generational inbreeding and resulted in genetically inferior beings. Why don't you have the Indian government examine the tissue and see if something beneficial to the common good can be derived from the waste products?
You know I really want you TooSense, and I want your superior genes in my pool?
You know I really want you TooSense, and I want your superior genes in my pool?
.
Uhmm no you don't. It's bad enough he pees in it.
Well, I imagined him as being nearly EIGHT feet tall. That is superior for something in my royal book...
I'd trust the pool guy on this one, nony.
I'll be the judge of that, TooSense. You do have a certain appeal with that smart-ass mouth of yours.
I do have certain size requirements, though. Anything over 6 feet is fine with me. You know, for a good genetic fit. Any size under won't make me happy. Oh, I like broad shoulders, too. You do have some girth, yes?
Girth to match mirth, but a little closer to earth.
Oh, my. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmirth.
Oh, no! Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbirth!
Don't worry TooSense--it'll be really cute and very tiny and small. And did I mention really, really cute? And genetically the finest specimen ever to grace this green Earth--despite any biological flaws you may possess. I'm quite certain that my uber-genes will override any of your undesirable ones. Like being liberal. It will have to be baptized Catholic, of course. And sent to Catholic schools. So start saving. Oh, and if it's a girl she'll need a fashionable wardrobe and a very big, accurate mirror. Don't worry about summer camp--I have that covered. Did you get all of that?
That reminds me, I need to pick up some more condoms. I don't understand why they can't stock bigger boxes (sigh).
Would that be in gross or size?
I should think enormous would do either way. I mean, for as smart as you are, your busy head must be gigantic, right?
Sorry, sweetheart--I couldn't resist.
oh, and one more thing. Then I'm off to Mass to pray for your heathen soul. If you were planning on using those condoms for us, don't bother, dear. It's too late--your boys can swim.
There was a vainglorious, blogging strumpet
A flirt so notorious, TooSense dogging wouldn't hump it
The back scuttle is few Aussie kisses
To the spot her ex husband always misses
Oh, I better not go there, sorry, the stuporious, snogging Crumpet
You're just jealous I won't let your dirty jeans in my pool.
wv: basterta. I learned it at Mass tonight--it's Latin. Real Latins detest WASPY, limp noodle-aussies. That's the dividing line between the real ones and the fakes. We compromise our heritage.
We NEVER compromise our heritage. The real ones, that is. Latins. Roman. Italians. Everyone else is just a footnote.
Missing the Splash yet, FH?
This is really a difficult question? Or rather, two? In scenario one, one would be a criminal. In scenario two, one would be worthy of criminal recrimination...
Yogi, have you no grasp of the absurd at all? The whole "Blog Film" lark was just that: utterly without hidden meaning, Freudian undergrowth, or mean spiritedness. Lighten up. It is your penchant for casting yourself as the quick witted George Milton caretaking for an army of Lenny Smalls that might benefit from some professional scrutiny...
This whole thing got me to thinking. Which I suppose is a good thing. So thank you ferret.
Talking about morality play and moral dilemmas. Your hypothetical was absurd, ferret, no offense. No one in their right mind would take a leave of absence from their job to take care of a rich elderly disabled relative for the chance to inherit wealth. Anyone that wealthy should hire a professional to do the job. And, if you were slimy enough to actually do what your were proposing, you must not only be incredibly stupid, but incredibly slimy. Yuck.
Here's a more realistic and interesting dilemma: TooSense and I throw caution to the wind and have a one night stand. I'm married to someone else, but in the process of divorce and we don't know if he is or not. Are you TooSense?
Anyway, I get pregnant. As you all know, I'm pro-life, he's not. He has no children, and he's aging fast. I want the baby, 'cause even though I dislike this man's politics, I'd never hold someone else responsible for the beliefs or actions of their parent.What do you suppose ol' TwoSense has to say about the matter?. What does he do?
Well, we all know what he does...that's right, NOTHING.And, it doesn't matter what he thinks. He's been rendered powerless. Except, for one thing, he can get ready to start paying some money.
I love liberal justice. And now I understand why liberal men are attracted to liberal women.
The hand that rocks the cradle really does rule the world.
Don't forget it when you're trying to become immortal...they'll be your future audience.
If the holidays/eight years of Bush/the ensuing depression have got you stressed, do youself a favor and watch this video, in the full screen mode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTxplw60FU&feature=related
FERRETS IN LOVE
Scene one (Deposition in divorce attorney's office) Madeleine Peyroux (AKA Ferrethead) is divorcing Michael Gallason, a man she married online, after finding him making pastry dough with a wealthy widow he met on Bauer's blog.
http://tinyurl.com/9zzfsg
Scene two: Madeleine meets an old flame, a duet with TooSense filmed live at The Santa Rosa Wee!
http://tinyurl.com/9g9fvo
Scene Three: Christmas at FH's home. She imagines her cat is KD Lang. BTW this would make a good answer to the favorite Christmas song question.
http://tinyurl.com/8fyof9
Scene Four: FH takes a trip to Paris
http://tinyurl.com/2aot28
Scene Five: (A cold street in a nameless city) Will she ever find true love?
http://tinyurl.com/84mbm5
Scene Six: Madeleine gets a call from her ex husband, Michael. He and #7 are just had a baby together, and get this, through the miracle of Fetus in Fetu, Michael is giving birth to his own twin. She thinks about what might have been.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJrwLJJp3A&feature=related
Scene Seven: She resigns herself to a loveless life, takes a job in a dance hall. One day a tall, handsome stranger asks her to do the Bosanova with him.
http://tinyurl.com/9jober
The romance takes, and she lives happily ever after.
http://tinyurl.com/7u7vn6
Closing Credits: Scenes from the honeymoon
http://tinyurl.com/9vs5uy
has anyone spent the time necessary to check out all of yogi's tinyurls? The first one, of i guess M. Peroux was pretty dull
Flaming dogs bark, fly at my ice/
Burnt toast for lunch, from Vincent Price/
Beckoning wings throw me a reef/
Silicone babies all filled with grief/
Winsome, lose some, cautarize Joe/
Hand in the willow, this child shall flow/
Beckon the weak, honor the dead/
Ethel's bald husband, his name was Fred
What's that ditty...theme song of the Hearse Corpse?
Not true, they're listening to me in Richmond,Va Gina.
Ya, well, I really couldn't care less. And I don't even get your stupid references--if there are any, Jack.
and in Norfolk,Va Gina
Pardon my naivete, but what do you mean? Why those two towns?
Clue: YC must be pregnant, because he missed a few periods. ;-)
Oh. How fitting.
Intentions are nice, but results are what we have to live with.
Post a Comment