What makes an action right or wrong? If something is right, does that make it good? Who or what determines morality, and why? Such questions are basics within the confines of ethics. To question the status of a moral judgment is for us to have a better understanding of morality itself. In this thread, I would like to investigate this, and hopefully, get some kind thoughts from other forumers. I will talk about why I believe that there is a difference between what is right and what is good, discuss and share about moral theories, as well as the theists’ all-time favorite – The Divine Command Theory of Morality.

Right versus Good

Suppose you're in a small boat with your best friend and you two are in the middle of a lake. By some unfortunate accident your boat capsizes throwing you and your best friend in the frigid water. You are a good swimmer but unfortunately your friend isn't. Naturally, you tried to swim to the nearest island tugging your friend along with you. When you and your friend reached the shore, you noticed that your friend was extremely exhausted and showed signs of hypothermia. With your friend's dying breath he requested a favor. Your friend goes..."If I die, I want you to go to the backyard of my house and dig out a bag full of money worth $10 million. I want you to give this money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel ball club to give to Michael Jordan as an enticement for him to play for Ginebra". Because he is your bestfriend and this is his last wish you agreed to do this favor. After a few moments, your friend passed away. You got rescued a few hours later then went to your friend's house a few days after your rescue. You dug out a bag in the backyard and sure enough...$10 million dollars was there! You know that even if you give this money to the Ginebra San Miguel team, Michael Jordan would still not come out of retirement and play in the PBA. Hence, a waste of money. You also know that this $10 million can save the lives of thousands of children with cancer in the hospital where you work (let's say you work in a hospital) if you purchase a couple of magnetic resonance machines. What are you going to do? Okay, let's just say that these are the only two options and going to Barbados squandering the money is not an option. hehehe Anyway, are you going to give this money for Michael Jordan's enticement or are you going to use it to save the lives of thousands of children with cancer? We are basically dealing with the difference of rightness and goodness here. If you opt to give the money to Ginebra, you are doing the right thing because you are (duty) bound by your promise to your bestfriend; besides, the money is not yours to start with anyway, right? But if you choose to use the money for the kids with cancer to save the lives of thousands of children, what you are doing is more like what is good.

In any case, do let me know what you’ll do if you were put in such a dilemma. Would you give the money to the Ginebra San Miguel team manager for Michael Jordan’s enticement (as you promised your friend), or are you going to use the money to save the lives of thousands of children with cancer? Please note, there are no right or wrong answers here, but I will give you an interpretation of your answer on those two choices.

Sure, I will give the money to Micheal Jordon, and I will put a conditions if we can do it in public, then suggest him that he will donate it in any charity that he prefer or maybe cancer victim, in honour of his friend, him and myself. he he he..

well, at least everyone is a hero.

Ooops. Sorry. Message got doubled so I erased the first one.

Skygazer's option is already good. I can do the same but add some.


Theoretically, I'd do as my dead friend requested. Given that it is a dying person's request, Jordan's stature, and done in public; it is unlikely that he'd take the enticement money and not play for Ginebra.

If Jordan elects not to play for Ginebra; then Ginebra is not likely to retain the money and thus give it back to ME and not to my dead friend since it was not in his will, he was not the one a receipt for the money was issued to, etc....

I can thus use the money to save the lives............


That is theoretical. If you really want to find out then just skip the friend dying part and just give me the money with your request.

Hi skygazer and JL,

Thanks for your input. It’s interesting that you guys answered the same way and both of you said you’ll give the money to Michael Jordan. However, if you’ll go back to the story, I mentioned that the only options were either to give the money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel, not to Jordan himself, or to just use the money instead to save lives. The manager may or may not give the money to Jordan, for all we know. Your task would only be to give the money to the Ginebra manager, for that case. If there are no conditions or any room for “creative” deals hehehe, would you still give the money to the Ginebra San Miguel manager as per your friend’s request? What if, okay, you’re allowed to give the money to Jordan himself, but he won’t accept your conditions and just take the money for his time spent talking with you, would you still give it to him as to your late friend’s liking?

Interesting, huh?

he he he.. u are not giving us an option huh!

o well... his wish is my command. I can't force people to be nice! Isn't it. I want to free myself, do my job, and all the best. I have a clean conscience.

It's like the movie, nakalimutan ko na ang title.. meron din tayong version niyon eh.. panday ba iyun. yung nagnanakaw then ibinibigay sa mahihirap.

Well, The end doesn't justify the means.

hehehe

Okay…here’s the deal. If you answered that you would still give the money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel because that’s what your friend wanted, it means that you are a deontologist. What the heck does that mean? That means that you are a person who gives priority to what is right over to what is good. You probably think that the money is not yours to start with anyway and you are (duty) bound by your promise to your friend, for you this is the right thing to do. Anyway, the opposite of deontologists are called teleologists. They are the ones who give priority to what is good over to what is right. So if your answer was to give the money to the hospital to save the children with cancer, then you’re a teleologist.

Here’s another interesting thing. I want you to hold your hands together. Come on…that’s it…just hold them together. You see how your fingers are interlocking? Tell me, which thumb is on top of the other one? Is the left thumb on top of your right thumb or is your right thumb on top of your left thumb? Let me know and I’ll tell you where I’m getting at.

my right thumb is on top of left.

I'd rather use the money to save thousand dying lives. A dead friend wish to have the money available to entice M. Jordan uncertain.

Saving lives is more priority than enticing Jordan and to ask him to donate money is flawed, donation must be voluntary no matter how noble the cause is. You can't name the prize to be donated.

Hi skygazer,

Okay, so you are a right-hand thumb over left-hand thumb person, huh? This suggests that you are a mind-over-heart person. You see, nature played an interesting trick on us. You are familiar with some brain mechanics, right? How the brain is split into 2 hemispheres, the left and the right hemispheres? Basically, there is this cross connection with the body and the mind. Being a right-hand thumb over a left hand thumb person suggests that your left side of the brain is more dominant. The left side of the brain deals with things the way they are-with reality (facts). When left brain people are affected by the environment, they usually adjust to it. Not so with right brain people. They try to change the environment. Left brain people want to know the rules and follow them. In fact, if there are no rules for situations, they will probably make up rules to follow. Anyway having said all these, left brain people would tend to be deontologists. Deontological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. Thus, in order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist which regulate those duties. That is where Kant's Categorical Imperative comes in, in essence a standard or criteria is set. Thus, when we follow our moral duty, we are then behaving morally. Which kind of makes sense in your case because you probably felt that you are bound by your duty of promise to your friend to give the money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel team as he requested.

Looking at the opposite. For left-hand thumb over right-hand thumb people, this suggests that they are heart-over-mind persons. In the right side of the brain, this is where creativity and emotions are processed. Thus, if a person is a left hand thumb-over right hand thumb person, the right side of the brain is more dominant. In such a case, the person probably has a tendency to be emotional and in philosophical terms, most likely a teleologist. Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which an action might have. Thus, for teleologists, as long as the consequence of an action is favorable or good, then the action can be deemed as morally right. This is demonstrated by how one would support (ethical/situational) relativism or the notion that sometimes "the end can justify the means".

This is not to say that all of us, whether right hand thumb over left hand thumb (or vice versa) person does not have the characteristics of the other type. The ideal case, of course, would have a balance of the two characteristics. But in most cases, there’s always a dominant trait that comes out.

Going back to teleology and deontology, to simplify the comparison:

Teleology = What you achieve from your action determines the moral status of an action.

Deontology = What you do in your action, the nature of the action itself, determines the moral status.

Interesting, huh?

Hi padi,

Thanks for your input. Yes, I would probably do the same thing. I guess it would be in our nature to choose to do that.

Cheers,
labguy

well.. u just said it all about me... he he he.. i will not go against it.. and i'm happy with it.

how about you..labguy.. ano ang iyo?

Glad you liked the analysis, skygazer. Ako? I am a left-hand thumb over right-hand thumb person. I am a teleologist. This is probably why I have a tendency to be emotional when it comes to issues especially touchy issues like religion and ethics.

Another interesting moral theory is called Utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, morality is determined by what is good for the majority; or in other words, what is good or right for the many outweigh what is right or good for the few.

However, let's suppose you were summoned by a ruthless dictator in front of 20 people (let's say they are innocent people). Just for kicks (and possibly a big ego trip) he gives you these 2 choices:

1. If you shoot and kill your 5 year old child, he will not order the execution of the 20 people in front of you.

2. If you refuse to kill your child, he will order the execution of those 20 people in front of you.

Utilitarianism dictates that it would be morally right to kill your child in exchange for the lives of 20 people. Would you be comfortable with that, though? Would the killing of your child be really moral just because of that logic? What would be the right thing to do if you were put in this kind of dilemma?