I don't know how you can be good without being right. I suppose you could stumble onto right/good behavior even with bad/ignorant thought, but odds seem low for that.
In my view, "goodness" comes from intentions and the processes you use to reach a decision. Whether those intentions and processes are based on "correct" factual information or not is a separate matter (as is the existence of "correct" information).
I see rightness as being thought (dependent on correct input, but also on correct analysis of said input), and goodness as being action (or at least intent being action...I'm always waffling between these. Is someone "good" who acts wrongly because of bad information or bad analysis? If I shoot you because I mistake you for a rabid bear, is that a good action or a bad one? I dunno.)
If you come to the right (which is more than "correct", it also includes morality) conclusion about how to act, and then act that way, you're good. Is it possible to be good without coming to the right conclusion about how to act first? hard to say.
In order for the distinction between "good" and "right" to make sense to me, I decided that "good" here means "ethical and moral" and "right" means "logical, correct, factual." :-)
You're quite correct that 'right' is a very ambiguous term in most contexts. I'll avoid talking about the details, though, and give a standard answer to your main question, as to whether someone can be good without being right:
In ethics, most people think the answer is 'yes'. The most famous discussion of the matter comes from philosopher Jonathan Bennet, who brings up an example from Huckleberry Finn. At one point in the story, Huck is trying to decide whether he should turn in his friend Jim, the runaway slave. And Huck sincerely believes--because he was taught as much--that it is immoral of him not to, because Jim is someone's rightful property. But Huck just can't do it. His feelings of concern for Jim lead him to do the right thing, while thinking he is doing the wrong thing. Huck has wrong beliefs (in the sense of being immoral, and, if you think there is a fact of the matter about morality, his moral beliefs are false) and he acts contrary to what some would call his conscience, and he is a better person because he does so. While there's a sense in which he's right, and acting for the right reasons, his worldview is so thoroughly mistaken that there's really no way we can say he's right, full stop--but both he and his decision are good.
Yeah, when I was thinking about this, I decided that it's MOST interesting to think about it in the "within a couple of SDs of the norm" range, because the more extreme cases are so, well, extreme.
My mom asks "would you rather be happy or right?" all the time, so I've had a lot of chances to consider that one :)
I assumed that I got to define "good."
In the long run, I think doing things I think are bad will keep me from being happy. I am aware of how insanely lucky I am that often, being good makes me happy.
I'm interested that some people are changing their answer for the last question. If one picks both good and happy above right in the first two questions, then the last question is identical, logically, to the first.
It is. I just decided to answer another question when answering the last one: "it feels better to me" vs "it is Better in the world". This was an irrational act on my part, but I'm like that. :)
I'm thinking of the saying, 'Whatever you say, is it necessary, truthful and kind?'.
This concept proves (to me) that it is totally possible to be right and it not be good. Ask anyone who has ever received nasty destructive criticism about something they cannot change. The critic might be right, but in the end, it isn't kind and doesn't do any good.
Wrong in that the comment wasn't necessary, truthful AND kind, yes. But if the comment was in fact accurate (for example 'you totally screwed up that account and as a result it lost all that money') then the comment would be right. Just not doing any good.
Different definitions of "right". A fact may be correct (you screwed up) but the conclusion drawn (I should tell this person about this fact) can be wrong. As I use the word, "right" incorporates what SHOULD be (thus the phrases "right action" and "do the right thing").
I suppose one could be contrary and define right as the opposite of left, which is very important when driving. Also, good could be the opposite of "gone stale." Happy, well, I think you have to go to the seven dwarves to twist that one.
It's hard for me to separate being happy from perceiving that I'm being good. If I think I am doing something bad, I'm not going to feel happy about it.
Hmmm. "Good" is tricky to define; for this poll I was sort of unconsciously defining it as "in accordance with the expectations of society/authority/etc.", so I put "right" ahead of it. That's either because of or despite the fact that I'm a parent; not sure which. :-)
For me, the phrasing "better to be right" strongly means public acknowledgment, getting someone else to note one's rightness. So it's the least important. In fact, the more fundamental meaning didn't even occur to me until I saw the debate in comments. I guess I could call that "getting it right", "being accurate"? Anyway, with THAT meaning, I think it ranks above happy but below good. If good was kind/nice, though, I'm not so sure.
i see people use "be right" in different ways. i think that in arguments with close friends/lovers, the complaint "you just need to be right all the time" usually means something like "be acknowledged as being right," whereas in the sentiment "i'd rather be right than president" it means more like "have views that are correct even if nobody else agrees that you're right."
in either sense, i feel like whether being right and being good are in conflict or not, and if so which is preferable, kinda depends on what the consequences are of being wrong.
I find that being right often sucks a lot. When I have dinner with a couple and think "that's not going to work" I would so much rather be proven wrong. There is the tiny satisfaction of "ok, I do have perception and understanding of these things," but that is far outweighed by "people I care about are suffering and I was pretty sure that would happen and there was nothing I could do to prevent it". Same thing with politics--usually sucks to be right. The times when I'm right and it's a happy thing are notable and I do my best to revel in them.
I like "happy" because I'm able to judge that one fairly indisputably. Sages and fools have debated "good" and "right" and will continue to do so and I have my own opinions on the topic that sometimes match up with those of others and sometimes are relevant. But whether or not I am happy, whether or not a particular experience adds or subtracts from my happiness--I get to be the judge of that.
Sadly, sages and fools also debate 'happy' (Epicurus vs. Aristotle, Bentham vs. J. S. Mill, etc.) And some (like all of the above except Bentham) think you can be wrong about whether or not you are REALLY happy, as opposed to whether you just THINK you're happy. The good news is, if you think you're happy, things could definitely be worse.
slightly less flippantly toward your poll, there is a Buddhist understanding of "right" that makes the question not make any sense.
There's a notion, for instance, called "right speech," which is considered a positive ideal to embrace. It doesn't mean saying things that are factually correct, though honesty is part of it, but it's not "brutal honesty," nor blowing sunshine up people's asses, either... it means saying the right thing for the situation, coming from the right place-- of not intending to be destructive or hurtful and of being aware and attentive enough to not accidentally be those things, either. (so Not "well, I wasn't *trying* to hurt her, so it's not my fault if she took it the wrong way..."). And the idea is that if you practice "right speech" or "right living" what you say and do will be 'right' and 'good' and you and the beings you influence will be more 'happy.'
So I think if I found myself trying to decided between "good," "right," and "happy" I'd seriously take a step back and ask myself how I got to a place that these were not the same thing.
I abstained, since I couldn't decide which of several meanings of good ("well", "ethical", "moral", "kind", "excellent", "competent") or right ("factually correct", "just", "entitled" (okay, obviously not that one), "ethical") to use, or which I valued more from various pairings. After all that, I am comforted by the unambiguity of "happy" though.
I'm did manage to decide that it's better to be happy than to be goods.
I got a little hung up on the meaning of "is it better to be..." If, in this sentence, "better" means "more pleasant for me," then the answer is always that it is better to be happy. I think, however, that you are asking the classic philosophical question about how to lead a good life (as distinct from the pleasurable life) and that's how I answered.
I'm also a little thrown by the idea of what it means to be "good." What I took this to mean, and generally what I think it means, is "not bad" or rather "not unethical." I tend to think of ethical conduct as a neutral state, or, put differently, a floor. If you fall below that base line your behavior is unethical, i.e. bad. If you remain above that line your behavior is ethical, i.e. good. However, there is also behavior that is not required to be ethical, but is laudable. For example, I am not committing a moral wrong by not giving money to charity, but if I do I have done something that has moral significance and is praiseworthy. That could have been what you meant by "good". Ultimately, if "not bad" and "good" are two different things, my answer changes. While I think it is more important to be not bad than to be happy, I also think it is more important to be happy than to do things that are laudable, but not required.
Also, I'm inclined to think for most people to be happy they generally need to refrain from doing unethical things, as people tend to feel really shitty when they do things that are wrong.
I'm fascinated by all the interpretations that are necessary to answer this poll! Some people are explaining what "right" or "good" means to them, and others what "happy" means, and still others what "better" means. I'm really enjoying those explorations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aroraborealis) wrote2010-07-27 09:59 am
no subject
no subject
In my view, "goodness" comes from intentions and the processes you use to reach a decision. Whether those intentions and processes are based on "correct" factual information or not is a separate matter (as is the existence of "correct" information).
no subject
If you come to the right (which is more than "correct", it also includes morality) conclusion about how to act, and then act that way, you're good. Is it possible to be good without coming to the right conclusion about how to act first? hard to say.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
On the flip side I might argue that any thought which leads to good action is thereby a right thought.
Philosophical gibberish
(Anonymous) 2010-07-28 02:22 am (UTC)(link)You're quite correct that 'right' is a very ambiguous term in most contexts. I'll avoid talking about the details, though, and give a standard answer to your main question, as to whether someone can be good without being right:
In ethics, most people think the answer is 'yes'. The most famous discussion of the matter comes from philosopher Jonathan Bennet, who brings up an example from Huckleberry Finn. At one point in the story, Huck is trying to decide whether he should turn in his friend Jim, the runaway slave. And Huck sincerely believes--because he was taught as much--that it is immoral of him not to, because Jim is someone's rightful property. But Huck just can't do it. His feelings of concern for Jim lead him to do the right thing, while thinking he is doing the wrong thing. Huck has wrong beliefs (in the sense of being immoral, and, if you think there is a fact of the matter about morality, his moral beliefs are false) and he acts contrary to what some would call his conscience, and he is a better person because he does so. While there's a sense in which he's right, and acting for the right reasons, his worldview is so thoroughly mistaken that there's really no way we can say he's right, full stop--but both he and his decision are good.
Re: Philosophical gibberish
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I assumed that I got to define "good."
In the long run, I think doing things I think are bad will keep me from being happy. I am aware of how insanely lucky I am that often, being good makes me happy.
no subject
no subject
irrationality.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This concept proves (to me) that it is totally possible to be right and it not be good. Ask anyone who has ever received nasty destructive criticism about something they cannot change. The critic might be right, but in the end, it isn't kind and doesn't do any good.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, good could be the opposite of "gone stale."
Happy, well, I think you have to go to the seven dwarves to twist that one.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
in either sense, i feel like whether being right and being good are in conflict or not, and if so which is preferable, kinda depends on what the consequences are of being wrong.
no subject
I like "happy" because I'm able to judge that one fairly indisputably. Sages and fools have debated "good" and "right" and will continue to do so and I have my own opinions on the topic that sometimes match up with those of others and sometimes are relevant. But whether or not I am happy, whether or not a particular experience adds or subtracts from my happiness--I get to be the judge of that.
Buzzkill
(Anonymous) 2010-07-28 02:31 am (UTC)(link)Sadly, sages and fools also debate 'happy' (Epicurus vs. Aristotle, Bentham vs. J. S. Mill, etc.) And some (like all of the above except Bentham) think you can be wrong about whether or not you are REALLY happy, as opposed to whether you just THINK you're happy. The good news is, if you think you're happy, things could definitely be worse.
no subject
no subject
There's a notion, for instance, called "right speech," which is considered a positive ideal to embrace. It doesn't mean saying things that are factually correct, though honesty is part of it, but it's not "brutal honesty," nor blowing sunshine up people's asses, either... it means saying the right thing for the situation, coming from the right place-- of not intending to be destructive or hurtful and of being aware and attentive enough to not accidentally be those things, either. (so Not "well, I wasn't *trying* to hurt her, so it's not my fault if she took it the wrong way..."). And the idea is that if you practice "right speech" or "right living" what you say and do will be 'right' and 'good' and you and the beings you influence will be more 'happy.'
So I think if I found myself trying to decided between "good," "right," and "happy" I'd seriously take a step back and ask myself how I got to a place that these were not the same thing.
no subject
I'm did manage to decide that it's better to be happy than to be goods.
no subject
I'm also a little thrown by the idea of what it means to be "good." What I took this to mean, and generally what I think it means, is "not bad" or rather "not unethical." I tend to think of ethical conduct as a neutral state, or, put differently, a floor. If you fall below that base line your behavior is unethical, i.e. bad. If you remain above that line your behavior is ethical, i.e. good. However, there is also behavior that is not required to be ethical, but is laudable. For example, I am not committing a moral wrong by not giving money to charity, but if I do I have done something that has moral significance and is praiseworthy. That could have been what you meant by "good". Ultimately, if "not bad" and "good" are two different things, my answer changes. While I think it is more important to be not bad than to be happy, I also think it is more important to be happy than to do things that are laudable, but not required.
Also, I'm inclined to think for most people to be happy they generally need to refrain from doing unethical things, as people tend to feel really shitty when they do things that are wrong.
no subject