Can right turn into wrong and wrong turn into right?

[DiscipleOfTruth]

Introduction:

It's easy for people to say what's right and what's wrong. What should be done and what shouldn't be done. But why are we so quick to say what is right and wrong when we don't know the results of the actions yet? Sure, we need a system of crime and punishment purposed for the safety and protection of the innocent. However, this necessary way of running society causes us to think that something is clearly right or wrong regardless of the reasons and the outcome.

Scenario for the unbeliever:

If the only way that some random man could survive was for him to kill three people and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he has to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway.

Same scenario, but edited for the religious person:

If the only way that some random man could be saved was for him to kill three believers and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he had to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway as an unbeliever.


Please feel free to respond to the either or both categories regardless if you're a believer or not and to respond to anyone else's reply on the topic. I prefer to not set limits as to how this can be debated.

[connermt]

Introduction:

It's easy for people to say what's right and what's wrong. What should be done and what shouldn't be done. But why are we so quick to say what is right and wrong when we don't know the results of the actions yet? Sure, we need a system of crime and punishment purposed for the safety and protection of the innocent. However, this necessary way of running society causes us to think that something is clearly right or wrong regardless of the reasons and the outcome.

Scenario for the unbeliever:

If the only way that some random man could survive was for him to kill three people and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he has to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway.

Same scenario, but edited for the religious person:

If the only way that some random man could be saved was for him to kill three believers and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he had to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway as an unbeliever.


Please feel free to respond to the either or both categories regardless if you're a believer or not and to respond to anyone else's reply on the topic. I prefer to not set limits as to how this can be debated.

I find your concept interesting. The problem I see is that we don't know the future. How do we know, at the time or immediately after, that killing three people is the only way for the guy to survive? And what about the three people he killed? Are they worth sacrificing for him? It probably depends on who is being asked the question.

Even today we can't all agree on what's right and wrong universally. And if we can't all agree right now, how could we agree on what the outcome of said happening ends up being in the future?

Sure something good may come of something bad, or vice versa, sometime in the future, but we don't know that yet. We can't make judgements based on possibilities that lie in the future.

[Quath]

For me, right and wrong are about the motives and not so much the outcome. Part of the uncertainty in moral questions is our inability to predict the future. But even knowing it, just means we would be able to make better informed decisions.

The unbeliever question is asking if it is ok for someone to kill 3 people to live. But most of it comes back to the reasons. For example, are the three people gangsters trying to rough him up for money? Or are the 3 people trapped with the person in a place with limited food? Or does someone have a gun against the person's head and tells them to kill three children?

[DiscipleOfTruth]

Introduction:

It's easy for people to say what's right and what's wrong. What should be done and what shouldn't be done. But why are we so quick to say what is right and wrong when we don't know the results of the actions yet? Sure, we need a system of crime and punishment purposed for the safety and protection of the innocent. However, this necessary way of running society causes us to think that something is clearly right or wrong regardless of the reasons and the outcome.

Scenario for the unbeliever:

If the only way that some random man could survive was for him to kill three people and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he has to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway.

Same scenario, but edited for the religious person:

If the only way that some random man could be saved was for him to kill three believers and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he had to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway as an unbeliever.


Please feel free to respond to the either or both categories regardless if you're a believer or not and to respond to anyone else's reply on the topic. I prefer to not set limits as to how this can be debated.

I find your concept interesting. The problem I see is that we don't know the future. How do we know, at the time or immediately after, that killing three people is the only way for the guy to survive? And what about the three people he killed? Are they worth sacrificing for him? It probably depends on who is being asked the question.

Even today we can't all agree on what's right and wrong universally. And if we can't all agree right now, how could we agree on what the outcome of said happening ends up being in the future?

Sure something good may come of something bad, or vice versa, sometime in the future, but we don't know that yet. We can't make judgements based on possibilities that lie in the future.

Agreed, my topic was more so an observation to show us or even remind us the problems with our unavoidable ignorance. A way of saying in the back of our minds that when we look at something as right or wrong that we should imagine if it could be the opposit of what it appears. Aside from a few exceptions such as rape and the related things that go along with it. As open minded as I am that is such a thing that is too sensitive to play what ifs with even in my own mind.

Yes, because of what we don't know we can't be sure enough to treat any convicted murderer as someone who did the ''right'' thing, but I just think it's an interesting possiblity to consider to ourselves before we are so quick to agree with the majority of people's opinions.

I'm just hoping someone would come along to disagree with the possility of what appears good can be bad and vice versa, to hear their arguments.

[DiscipleOfTruth]

For me, right and wrong are about the motives and not so much the outcome. Part of the uncertainty in moral questions is our inability to predict the future. But even knowing it, just means we would be able to make better informed decisions.

The unbeliever question is asking if it is ok for someone to kill 3 people to live. But most of it comes back to the reasons. For example, are the three people gangsters trying to rough him up for money? Or are the 3 people trapped with the person in a place with limited food? Or does someone have a gun against the person's head and tells them to kill three children?

I believe regardless of our motives we can accidentally do something right or wrong. For example, if a police officer asked a person where such and such person is because a loved one filled out a missing report, then it appears good that the person helped the police to find a missing person. But if that cop for whatever reason after finding that person decides to kill them after finding them, then it appears that person did something horrible. Motives were good, but the action was bad. The person didn't intend for the murder to happen but it was their information that lead to the their victim. They unintentionally helped that person's killer find their victim.

As for the response to the unbeliever question:

The situation I was imagining at the time of making this topic was a person who decided to kill three strangers in the street. A grown man murdering three men that he doesn't know and did nothing to him. He goes to prison, where he spends the rest of his life regardless if he ever feels remorseful or not. What he didn't know however is that if he didn't commit that crime he would of inevitably died very soon. On the flip side of the coin, if he knew this information, he might of then committed the crime because he had a strong desire to survive. In the sense of survival he did something right. In the situation of him not knowing the future, which is more likely to be the real situation, he accidentally did the right thing to survive.

The laws are supposed to be in place for the safety of the people, in this situation the law failed to fulfill it's duty for this man and it wasn't the law's fault. They were just inable to recognize this man's situation after it happened as he may of been inable to recognize it before it happened.

So you can change the minor details of the situation as you desire for yourself to feel more comfortable with the topic, but it all remains the same. I had one way of imagining it and you might feel better with another. But one thing you should know, this is not a situation of immediate self defence. For the most part the man did something that appears unniversally wrong and got very lucky from it because he didn't even know it was the only way he would be able to survive.

How do we measure the value of life? If a person knew that the only way to continue living was only enabled by his actions to kill others, then how does one decide is what I ask myself. In a way everyone has a right to treat theirself as number one. On the flip side they have the right to wave that right and treat others greater than themsselves by sacrifing their life so that others may live. But if a person makes the choice to not sacrfice theirself, that's if they know the situation, the main question becomes are they really wrong? I don't think so.

I believe universal right and wrong are defined by the direct results of the actions. The problem is we aren't able to see the future before the action happens. Another problem is that we can't find a solution to such a situation if it actually happened, to be able to save anyone from having to fall victim.

[Quath]

I believe regardless of our motives we can accidentally do something right or wrong. For example, if a police officer asked a person where such and such person is because a loved one filled out a missing report, then it appears good that the person helped the police to find a missing person.

For me it comes down to motives. If the person just wanted to answer to get the police away from discovering their drugs, then it was not so good of an act. It if was done out of concern for a missing person it was a good act.

If the officer had instead asked a computer and found the missing person, I would not say that the computer did something morally good even if the outcome was a good thing.

[connermt]

Introduction:

It's easy for people to say what's right and what's wrong. What should be done and what shouldn't be done. But why are we so quick to say what is right and wrong when we don't know the results of the actions yet? Sure, we need a system of crime and punishment purposed for the safety and protection of the innocent. However, this necessary way of running society causes us to think that something is clearly right or wrong regardless of the reasons and the outcome.

Scenario for the unbeliever:

If the only way that some random man could survive was for him to kill three people and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he has to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway.

Same scenario, but edited for the religious person:

If the only way that some random man could be saved was for him to kill three believers and went to prison for the rest of his life, does that make his action wrong? Sure he had to be punished, but is he wrong? This is to say that if he didn't commit that crime he would of died in someway as an unbeliever.


Please feel free to respond to the either or both categories regardless if you're a believer or not and to respond to anyone else's reply on the topic. I prefer to not set limits as to how this can be debated.

I find your concept interesting. The problem I see is that we don't know the future. How do we know, at the time or immediately after, that killing three people is the only way for the guy to survive? And what about the three people he killed? Are they worth sacrificing for him? It probably depends on who is being asked the question.

Even today we can't all agree on what's right and wrong universally. And if we can't all agree right now, how could we agree on what the outcome of said happening ends up being in the future?

Sure something good may come of something bad, or vice versa, sometime in the future, but we don't know that yet. We can't make judgements based on possibilities that lie in the future.

Agreed, my topic was more so an observation to show us or even remind us the problems with our unavoidable ignorance. A way of saying in the back of our minds that when we look at something as right or wrong that we should imagine if it could be the opposit of what it appears. Aside from a few exceptions such as rape and the related things that go along with it. As open minded as I am that is such a thing that is too sensitive to play what ifs with even in my own mind.

Yes, because of what we don't know we can't be sure enough to treat any convicted murderer as someone who did the ''right'' thing, but I just think it's an interesting possiblity to consider to ourselves before we are so quick to agree with the majority of people's opinions.

I'm just hoping someone would come along to disagree with the possility of what appears good can be bad and vice versa, to hear their arguments.

Gotcha!

[DiscipleOfTruth]

I believe regardless of our motives we can accidentally do something right or wrong. For example, if a police officer asked a person where such and such person is because a loved one filled out a missing report, then it appears good that the person helped the police to find a missing person.

For me it comes down to motives. If the person just wanted to answer to get the police away from discovering their drugs, then it was not so good of an act. It if was done out of concern for a missing person it was a good act.

If the officer had instead asked a computer and found the missing person, I would not say that the computer did something morally good even if the outcome was a good thing.

Can good motives cause bad actions if the direct results of the future are horrible only because of the action?

[Quath]

Can good motives cause bad actions if the direct results of the future are horrible only because of the action?

I guess an example of this would be a doctor giving medicine to a sick patient. However, it turns out the patient is allergic to the medicine. I would say the doctor's motives were probably good (neutral if he is just out for a paycheck) but the outcome was bad.

[DiscipleOfTruth]

And that is how I constructed my unbeliever question. The man who murdered had bad motives but his action was good. It was good because if he didn't commit the crime he would of immediatly died. What makes it even more interesting is that the man doesn't know this. He did the right thing by accident and now he might feel horrible for it because of what he doesn't know. That is assuming he wants to survive and would of commited the same action if he did know the risk of refusing to do so.

The deaths of the three men in this situation are bad. Imo, life is a gamble, it takes a mixture of luck, intelligence, and correct decisions to live a long enjoyable life of quality. These victims recieved the losing part and there was nothing they could do about it.


Motives which are good or bad turn into actions which good or bad and this turns into results which are good or bad.

The wonder that sparked this thread was 'how often does this happen if even at all?' That is something we may never know. But I would hope such a way would become possible through the advancements of our technology. Such a revelation would inspire a deeper understanding of life.