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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:28 pm (UTC)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)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:53 pm (UTC)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)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-27 03:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-27 02:54 pm (UTC)On the flip side I might argue that any thought which leads to good action is thereby a right thought.
Philosophical gibberish
Date: 2010-07-28 02:22 am (UTC)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
Date: 2010-07-29 01:02 am (UTC)