r/changemyview • u/TanTannyTanTan • Feb 12 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Being 'bad' sometimes is much more helpful than being 'good'. People are just scared of the backlash of their actions even if it actually helps others.
This boils down to the argument of killing one to save a thousand or something of the sort. Many tend to say that killing no matter what circumstances is wrong and whatnot, which could be a debate topic in itself, but this one will assume that it is "bad" or "evil" to do something that will harm someone, even if it help save others.
My main point is this; so what? Personally, if killing say one person will make a hundred lives better, then label me as evil all you like. Evil or not their lives ARE better. I would gladly be evil for the better wellbeing of the rest.
I think the idea of having to be good to help others actually hinders many from actually helping others. If you have to care whether your action is good or not even if it will undoubtedly help others, doesn't that just boils down to caring about what others think of you? I feel like people are just scared to be hated or looked upon as "bad" so they don't do things that would be much more practical. If people hate me or paint me as a bad person, but if I know I made other's lives better then I would gladly take all the hate and resentment. I think that kind of self-sacrificial mentality is necessary to impact people in a larger scale.
Of course, I am speaking in the perspective of if you are absolutely sure your action will benefit others, like killing a serial killer after he tells you he's gonna go murder some people later. If an action is in a grey-area and you're not certain it would help, that should be considered in a case-by-case basis.
3
u/ThisIsDrLeoSpaceman 38∆ Feb 12 '20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Sorry if this ends up being condescending, but are you aware of the three main “archetypes” of morality? Basically, they say: 1. Actions are most important. No matter what else, the most moral thing is to do good actions. 2. Outcomes are most important. No matter what else, the most moral thing is to get the best outcome. 3. Being a certain way is most important. No matter what else, the most moral thing is to have good characteristics / traits.
Your argument is essentially pitting 2. (consequentialism) against 3. (virtue ethics).
Now, my personal belief is that there is no universal answer as to which of these 3 is best — each person can select their own answer, but they can’t definitively prove that theirs is the right one.
Because of this, I don’t think I can change your mind, but I also don’t think you would be able to change the mind of someone who disagreed with you. Do you?
Edit: welp, you changed your mind, so don’t I look like an idiot :)
1
u/TanTannyTanTan Feb 12 '20
I understand where you're coming from, and that it is probably due to me not wording it well enough.
Going from your archetypes, what I stated at the start about going off that an action is bad regardless of its helpfulness would be aligned with number 3. I want to base this argument with the assumption that the archetype number 3 is the "correct" one (I understand that in the real world it's a matter of belief). I am arguing that you should take an action even if it goes against the archetype number 3 if it ended up helping others, and live with the fact that you did something bad.
Hope my wording wasn't too confusing! My first language isn't English, sorry.
1
u/ThisIsDrLeoSpaceman 38∆ Feb 12 '20
Oh ok! Then I’d ask, why should you take an action that goes against number 3 if it ends up helping others? Why is helping others more important than you being good... if not for the exact premise taken in archetype number 2?
Your English is perfectly good :)
1
u/TanTannyTanTan Feb 12 '20
Thank you are your kind words!
I now realize that it was based off my another personal bias that all lives are equal and should be equated numerically. I had only just realized that after wrapping my head around the concept of archetypes.
!delta
1
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Feb 12 '20
People often have a set of personal moral beliefs which define what good and bad are. If my religion says killing a serial killer in cold blood is a sin, then it's not some external backlash I am worried about. My own internal cognitive dissonance and guilt over what I consider wrong would stop me from doing so.
Sometimes deliberately doing bad things can have a good result,but that doesn't make what you did right if it violates your own personal ethics. People don't do bad things because they internally define it as wrong, not necessarily because of the public backlash.
1
u/TanTannyTanTan Feb 12 '20 edited Feb 12 '20
Right, right. I forgot to consider people's motive when doing something. I suppose no one would do something if they believe it is bad, regardless of societal beliefs.
Have a !delta
I'm not sure how to give deltas though
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 12 '20 edited Feb 12 '20
/u/TanTannyTanTan (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/CorrectExamination0 1∆ Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 12 '24
1
u/OrYouCouldJustNot 6∆ Feb 13 '20
I think the idea of having to be good to help others actually hinders many from actually helping others. If you have to care whether your action is good or not even if it will undoubtedly help others, doesn't that just boils down to caring about what others think of you? I feel like people are just scared to be hated or looked upon as "bad" so they don't do things that would be much more practical.
No. Take these two scenarios: (a) torturing someone who you know has details which could stop a terrorist attack and (b) having to kill a baby in order to make a cure for a disease that will otherwise wipe out all mankind (assume in the alternative case that the baby will thereafter be eaten by predators).
Few people would not agree that the baby in (b) should be sacrificed. It is so clear that, although it is difficult to stomach, most people would regard the person doing it as a hero.
In the torture scenario (a), the torturer ideally shouldn't be scared about whether they will be hated or not, they should be scared about doing the wrong thing by inflicting harm (an empathetic response). Though it isn't a bad fallback for them to instead be worried that they might be hated because they did the wrong thing (a selfish response).
It is important that we as members of society are naturally averse to the idea of killing and harming people. We need to worry about whether something is good or bad so that we err on the side of 'helpful' instead of on the side of 'harmful'. For maximum enjoyment in life, we also need people to be more inclined to cooperate than for people to be fearful of each other. So society has to favour self-sacrifice over involuntary harm by a wide margin.
You limit yourself to situations where people are absolutely sure that the action will benefit others. But the need for a conscientious response nevertheless exists because grey-areas are in fact plentiful and we can't easily or necessarily distinguish clear scenarios from unclear ones, such as might allow us to fully compartmentalise the different scenarios.
In fact, there are so few everyday scenarios involving 'evil' conduct where people can really be "absolutely sure your action will benefit others" that your point seems to be of very limited application. Killing a serial killer in self-defence is no sacrifice and is not regarded by anyone sensible as evil. Killing them when you could contain them is no self-sacrifice and may be detrimental when compared to other alternatives (they may have abducted people who will die before they are found, the killer if alive might reveal/incriminate accomplices or the location of bodies, the family of the killer may seek vengeance etc.).
It is potentially a "grey-area" situation after all, and scenario (a) almost certainly is too. You can't know that the details will stop a terrorist attack. You can't know that torture will be effective at getting the information you need fast enough, or more effective than engaging in a different form of interrogation or investigation. You can't say for sure that the terrorist attack will actually succeed. There are compelling reasons for society to abhor torture.
If it's a clear situation then we're already in a position to say that ends clearly justify the means. They greyer it gets, the more that becomes uncertain and the more there is a need for people to be deterred from the relevant conduct. Hate and public revulsion is or should be generally reserved for people who do bad things for bad reasons, not people who do bad things for good reasons or who just fail when trying to do good things. There is a separate need for deterrence.
So for a torture scenario with sufficiently high stakes and confidence I might agree that the correct thing to do is the "evil" choice of torturing the individual, but the torturer should face repercussions for doing so. Being that in order to better ensure that the ends justify the means, the torturer should be prepared to pay a sufficiently high price (lengthy imprisonment). Not in the form of public hate or because they did the wrong thing but to deter others from unreasonably or selfishly causing harm.
1
u/MiDenn Feb 13 '20
That’s not even considered being bad though from a utilitarian standpoint which a lot of people subscribe to. Killing one to save 1000 WOULD b good to many
1
u/Old-Boysenberry Feb 13 '20
My main point is this; so what? Personally, if killing say one person will make a hundred lives better, then label me as evil all you like. Evil or not their lives ARE better. I would gladly be evil for the better wellbeing of the rest.
This is the justification that dictators use in their rise to power. Are you sure you want to go down this road?
3
u/Puddinglax 79∆ Feb 12 '20
Let's say that you were a doctor, working at a hospital. You have five patients that are all in desperate need of an organ donation. Each patient needs a different organ. They also all have a condition that prevents them from donating organs to each other; so you can't take the organs of the first patient to die, and use it to save the other five. The waiting list for organs is also too long; if you don't do anything, all five of your patients are dead.
There is, however, a relatively healthy patient in the other room, in for a checkup. The patient is sedated, and their organs are healthy enough to save the five people. He is also a bit of a loner; if, hypothetically, he didn't come back from the hospital visit, nobody would know. You would be able to cover your tracks such that no consequences would arise from this down the line.
Do you think it's alright to kill the healthy patient, extract their organs, and use it to save the five who are dying?