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." :-)
![[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 02:28 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)