Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Whats right and whats wrong?

Good Essays
1033 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Whats right and whats wrong?
Essay 2
Doing something for the right reasons can never be wrong. If doing something for the right reasons, means doing something that is considered the morally necessitated action. In everyday circumstances, it is considered morally wrong to kill a fellow human being. But this does not therefore mean, killing a fellow human being is always wrong, there may well be circumstances in which doing so; is considered the reasonable and morally right action.
One may be put in a situation where the only route of action is to kill a fellow human being and the reason for doing so, is self-defense against the initiation of force on one's person, one's child, one's spouse or even in the act of war in defending one's country from a totalitarian regime. So, the premise that 'doing wrong for the right reasons is still wrong' is, it has to be said wrong headed. It is based on the premise that there are only absolute truths, such as "thou shalt not kill". If we exclude psychopaths, the drug deranged, the psychotically deranged - then the majority of us are repulsed at the idea of killing a fellow human being. But repulsion is not the standard on which to judge whether such an action is right or wrong.
We may well end up in a situation where we have no choice but to defend ourselves from the initiation of force against our person. In more extreme cases of violence, our only responsible action would be to kill the aggressor before they kill us. In such situations, we cannot hold back with restraint, to do so would almost certainly lead to the loss of our own life. In such a circumstance we would have no choice other than to become a killer. In such circumstances however, our self-defense tactic of killing a fellow human being to save ourself, would repulse us. Killing a fellow human being in self-defense does not turn someone into a killer (at least not usually). Indeed, such a person may live the rest of their life feeling guilty at taking another human beings life, although they had no choice in the matter, providing they wanted to stay alive.
If it were true that killing in self-defense was enough to turn someone into a killer, then a war veteran if we follow this logic; would go on a killing spree to kill civilians. But in the rare instances that this does happen it is shown to be the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, war situations can have the obverse effect on some individuals and veterans often become overly passive. It seems to be a psychological reaction based on deep guilt of having killed fellow human beings and to counter that guilt they become very passive. Now coming back to to the faulty logic of the statement: 'Doing wrong for the right reasons is still wrong' ...Lets take two examples:
1) Suppose a man is walking down the street, he suddenly pulls out a gun and shoots a stranger through the head. Now most of us would consider this a murderous and criminal act and we should expect this individual to feel the full force of the law.
But suppose I now told you that I have not given you the full story... Indeed, there is a name for this that is well know to journalists, lawyers and scientists, it is called 'context dropping'.
Here is the second example... Note this example describes the same situation as example number one above. But this time I will not drop context.
2) Suppose a man a (US soldier), is walking down the street (in Iraq), he suddenly pulls out a gun and shoots a stranger through the head... He did so, because (the man appeared to draw a gun) and was (aiming it in the soldier's direction).
Note what is interesting in a comparison between the two above examples, which are descriptions of the same incident. They do not contradict one another, that is apart from the fact of grasping the context of soldier and self-defense from example number one and in this context we would not: 'consider this a murderous and criminal act'.
The 'man is walking down the street' in example number one; does not contradict the fact that the man is a soldier 'walking down the street in Iraq' from example two. Neither is the fact that the stranger 'appeared to draw a gun and was aiming it in the soldier's direction' a contradiction. Both examples are none contradictory; rather, one example simply avoids or drops full context over the other.
Example number two, does not disqualify the truth of number one. However it does qualify a contradiction from example number one... That is: 'this a murderous and criminal act and we should expect this individual to feel the full force of the law'.
Context dropping is a favorite tool of lawyers and journalists. It is a way of not lying, but avoiding telling the whole truth. We've all seen films, where a lawyer in a court room is demanding only yes and no answers from a witness. We have all read stories by 'hack' journalists who don't necessarily tell a lie, but they avoid using full context to make the story 'juicy'.
On the other hand, context dropping in science leads not to scientific progress, but dogmatic scientific stultification. A scientist who continued to drop context would be found out very quickly.
The reason then that the statement: 'Doing wrong for the right reasons is still wrong' is a false statement is because of the reason given. It ignores context and is 'context dropping'. Morals apply to a given circumstance and it is thus correct to say that: Doing something for the right reasons can never be wrong. If doing something for the right reasons, means doing something that is considered the morally necessitated action. of the general public. But war veterans, on the whole are as repulsed at the idea of killing civilians as everyone else.
Now, there are exceptions. It is known that war situations can dehumanize individuals and it has been shown that individuals who have killed in war situations, may be more prone

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Morality and Obligation

    • 281 Words
    • 1 Page

    2. An action is considered morally good in addition to being right when it is the right thing to do, while also stemming from a good place. When the person or "agent" performs said act because it is right, from a feeling of obligation, a morally good act is also right.…

    • 281 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Death Penalty

    • 294 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Sue, A. P. (1998, Jan 25). Pro-death penalty but chivalrous texans debate fate of karla faye tucker. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/408352096?accountid=32521…

    • 294 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Kant Death Penalty

    • 573 Words
    • 3 Pages

    As children we were always taught the golden rule; treat others the way you want to be treated. Immanuel Kant believes in the “eye for an eye” principle. What ever a person does, it should be affiliated to what that person deserves. Kant states, “Accordingly, any undeserved evil that you inflict on someone else among the people is one that you do to yourself” (481). What ever harm you are committing to others, you are committing to yourself with an example he has given, “if you kill him, you kill yourself” (481). To me, this conclusion is very reasonable because it is known that if you carry out a murder, the chances are you may be sentenced to death. Therefore you ARE killing yourself. Likewise, Ernest van den hag believes in the death penalty as well. More so that the fact that deterrence will make people more afraid of committing a murder. People fear death more than anything else in most cases which should bring the homicidal rates down.…

    • 573 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    An action is morally right if it meets the highest ethical standards of the relevant moral community…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are some moments when killing can be justified, though it rarely is. In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell the two main characters have the same mentality but different point of views on killing. Sanger Rainsford is an intelligent, professional “Big Game Hunter” that hunts a large variety of animals. General Zaroff is a sociopathic “Dangerous Game Hunter” that finds great interest in hunting human beings. In this story, Sanger Rainsford hunted animals which was proven rationalized where as General Zaroff hunted humans which was proven unjustified.…

    • 451 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Killing Without Emotions

    • 929 Words
    • 4 Pages

    “In World War Two it is fact that only 15 to 20 percent of the solider fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one.” (Frisbee Jr) This surprising fact clearly indicates how hard it is to kill without emotions. The guilt or the feeling one gets after he has killed somebody is the worst feeling of his/her life. This fact also indicates our human nature. Emotions are the essential and necessary part of humans. In one way, humans are differentiated from animals and emotionless machines. This human nature of ours makes us think or stops us in order to kill without emotions. When humans are hardwired to be empathetic and compassionate not to kill, it is hard to understand why there is so much killing in the world? How, with empathy and compassion, can people kill? They must override their emotions with stronger emotions of hate and notions of purpose based on their beliefs.…

    • 929 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Self defense is arguably the most justifiable reason for taking a life. If someone should ever feel as though they are in immediate danger, violent retaliation is one of the most…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    is killing ever justified

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages

    There are lots of arguments to say when killing is justified as in the case of a war. In World War II the Nazi’s attempting to kill all the Jews in the world was definitely not justified, but on the other hand the Allies killing was justified because they were trying to keep the Germans from taking over the world and because of this we live in the world we live today.…

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    If a citizen has a reasonable belief that their life is in danger, then in that case a homicide is justifiable. In the case of a justifiable homicide, a citizen’s reasoning for committing such an act is the same for a soldier, a duty that must be executed. A soldier's duty is to protect the people he is ordered to protect along with his fellow servicemen, and a civilian’s is to protect the lives of his family and himself. Whenever an armed criminal enters someone's home, they don't have time to reason with a dangerous thug, especially when lives are on the line. Thus, this power can only be considered justly used when it is used in a way that could save lives. In conclusion, justifiable homicide should be an element in society so that the average man can protect his family and so that the soldier can protect the average…

    • 576 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It’s not so much about what is right it wrong, it’s more so about morals and ethics. Morals define personal character or the ability to choose between right and wrong, while ethics are a social arrangement where those morals should be applied. Ethics are the rules of behavior expected by a certain group of people. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or family ethics. In society, we all have some kind of conflicts with ethics and morals. For example, abortion is legal and medically…

    • 525 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    My example would be a guy stealing from Walmart just for the heck of it because he doesn’t care about the theft laws in place. Stealing is considered a crime first of all and it isn’t morally right to do. Stealing is stealing no matter what, but there can be some good reason behind his motive for stealing in the first place. In this case, he obviously had no positive motive for stealing. If there was some kind of benefit than it could be deemed justifiable, but from what we know he just does it for satisfaction because he can get away with it and not get caught. There’s no way to justify his actions if he was sent to jail. In order for him to maintain possible ethical values, he has to learn to have good judgement, strong reasoning, courage,…

    • 155 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Ethics: Right or Wrong?

    • 1767 Words
    • 8 Pages

    How does one determine what is wrong or right, good or bad? There is always a distinct right or wrong answer to most questions, except when it comes to ethics. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ethics as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation” and as “a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values” (“ethic,” defs. 1 and 2a). One individual’s ethics may not be the same as another. Their morals, what they were taught, and life experiences all differ and determine what they believe is right or wrong. As one gains experience from different situations in their life, the particulars of the ethics change, but the foundation stays the same.…

    • 1767 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The worse scenario of a crime as seen as ethical is killing someone is self-defense. The debate of someone's life being more important than the attackers has several pros and cons. The person could be facing extreme punishments. Not only could it have legal punishments but mental punishments as well. Since the person would be abnormally violent, it could leave emotional damage. Taking someone's life into their own hands is a big decision and some people will argue that it is not worth it.…

    • 136 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Business Ethics

    • 677 Words
    • 2 Pages

    But it’s not very simple or easy to determine what’s right “As what right for you might be wrong for others”. For example mission statement of an organization can be “to give a competitive returns to the shareholders of the company” which is perfectly ethical but they should ensure that it’s not done at the cost of harming the society, environment or communities.…

    • 677 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Is it right to kill a person? Is it sensible to teach a person not to kill by killing? What makes the prison guard who fires the shot or the doctor who inserts the lethal injection less of a murderer than the person whose life they just ended? What makes the judge and jury who just sentenced that person to death row any better than the man who convinced someone else to kill his wife? What constitutes killing a person? When is it moral? Is it ever moral?…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics