Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

 DemetriDominov wrote:
What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

Yes!

Is it time for another "is it right to hack criminals" "ethics of hacking" "can wrong ever be right" thread?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/507684.page

What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

This thread reeks of Kant.

Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

Anyways, the OP is kind of indirect so it's hard to answer it in any clear way, so I'll just take a shot in the dark here.

>What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Desperate times call for desperate measure. Outside of that it's a case by case basis. They are still wrong, immoral, and heinous choices, but sometimes you can be forced into them.

>Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

I came the conclusion a long time ago that the average person cannot handle the truth when it comes to hard to swallow information. In light of that, the best course of action is to tell people what they want to hear. Honesty is great and all, but sometimes the only way to get things done is from behind the scenes. I positively despise working that way, but I can just complain about people and do nothing or manipulate them and get things done. Often times you don't have the luxury of excess time to do anything but tell them what they want to hear.

>How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

Again, case by case basis. Good rule of thumb is to remember who you are. Sometimes in the course of hunting monsters you become one yourself.

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

I saw the link d-usa posted, but I wouldn't call it the exact same. Unless I'm missing something that one was simply a "why was my thread locked". Unless this thread is pretty much about that thread in a really weird way (if that's what you mean by different wording).

 Necroshea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

Irony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

I thought it was four lefts.

Now we're just going in circles.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

Irony.

Explain. I'm the one responding to the OP, not utterly derailing the thread.

If it starts to feel good then that is when it becomes wrong, usually.

Killing someone in self-defense / to defend someone else or someone who killed a person close to you.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

I kant believe you went there


Re: OP yes and no? Depends on about a couple hundred different variables unique to your own personal, cultural and religious morality (all three of which are probably different), and the situation at hand.

If we could stick to the topic please.

Thanks.

 reds8n wrote:
If we could stick to the topic please.

Thanks.

Certainly.

Right becomes Wrong when the behavior or actions move from being socially acceptable to socially unacceptable, according to the moral majority and the sociological guidelines or laws they set for that society.


Ta-DA!!!

But the question was "when do wrong actions become right".

Which is why I think this is just the 3rd attempt at a previous question that got already locked twice.

 d-usa wrote:
But the question was "when do wrong actions become right".

Which is why I think this is just the 3rd attempt at a previous question that got already locked twice.

My thoughts exactly.

The problem with all of this is that the thread title is When does right become wrong and then the OP asks us when are wrong things right.

So which is is OP, is it when right is wrong, or when wrongs are right?

 Alfndrate wrote:
The problem with all of this is that the thread title is When does right become wrong and then the OP asks us when are wrong things right.

So which is is OP, is it when right is wrong, or when wrongs are right?

Yeah, please clarify:

Are you wondering if white-hat hackers become wrong if they hack criminals, or are you wondering if black-hat hackers become right if they hack criminals? End justifying the means and all...

I've been taught that three lefts make a right.

So does three wrongs also constitute a right as well?

Seriously though, who has the authority to dictate rights and wrongs on a wide scale? Society? Governments?

I think we need a more philosophical look into this.

Perhaps something along the lines of a social contract.

When you're the person against the person doing things right?

For me, it's just like any other ethics or morality question. Reverse the situation and put yourself in the other person's shoes. Would you be okay with it being done to you?

Killing Hitler would stop the mass murder of certain groups, yes, certain actions are needed, in my opinion it is not the action which is right or wrong, but the reason.

 WarOne wrote:
I've been taught that three lefts make a right.

So does three wrongs also constitute a right as well?

Seriously though, who has the authority to dictate rights and wrongs on a wide scale? Society? Governments?

I think we need a more philosophical look into this.

Perhaps something along the lines of a social contract.

This is the essence of the thread. Thank you.

I'd like to remind those who keep talking about hacking that you're the one's bringing it up, not me. I have no intention of going there, I simply wanted to talk about morality, so please listen to reds8n's advice and stick to the topic.

Nothing is really wrong, just not right in some people's eyes.

Terrorists see their actions as right. Others don't.

 Monster Rain wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

I thought it was four lefts.

No that would be straight.

I think you just do what you think is right and hope no one gets mad at you.

I changed the title for those who were confused.

If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

Of course, that doesn't really form a workable moral philosophy for a population, since actually knowing ahead of time with complete certainty what action will be moral is effectively impossible, and so, rather ironically, a woefully inaccurate method of morality is itself moral in a sort-of meta way.

Wrong can be justified. That doesn't necessarily mean that the justification is a good one or that the action is morally right. It might be that the wrong is for a good reason, or you might just be deluding yourself that it is justifiable to make the action more palatable to yourself.