Good vs Right

[NERVUN]

One of them thar 1 am questions that keeps one up at night turning your brain in circles.

Simply put, is good and right mutually exclusive? If something, or someone, is good, does that make that action, or that person, automatically right (Right as in correct, not right wing)? If not, just what is the difference between the two?

Now for me, I kept going back to the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, (or the one). For me, this shows that a right action (elevating the many over the few or one) may not be a GOOD action. The usual trolley question shows this off perfectly. The one you send the trolley at would not see your action as good (and even if so, it's unlikely that his or her family would), but saving lives would seem to be a correct course of action.

But then we get into the thicket of defining what would be a good and/or right action since it seems to be relative to your own position. Then again, that way leads to an endless loop of moral relativism where you might as well conclude 'screw it, I'ma gonna hit someone over the head and have my way with that gender of preference as it's good and right for me.'

That, however, sounds fairly wrong too.

So where do you fall on this? Same, different, how so?

Go!

[Neanderthaland]

I suspect that it largely depends on how you define the two. If you don't draw a distinction between them, then there isn't one.

For myself, I do draw a distinction. And I further put forth an axiom that the "goodness" of an act of love largely correlates to how "wrong" it feels.

[NERVUN]

I suspect that it largely depends on how you define the two. If you don't draw a distinction between them, then there isn't one.

For myself, I do draw a distinction. And I further put forth an axiom that the "goodness" of an act of love largely correlates to how "wrong" it feels.

Are you trying to say that love should hurt so good?

That's an interesting idea though, but what if one feels something it wrong solely because you were brought up that way?

[Galloism]

Don't you mean mutually inclusive?

[Giovenith]

Skipping over the part where we all point out how nothing is really objectively right or wrong when it comes down to it as if most people who bother with these questions don't already realize that, bicker like jealous teenage valley girls over which one of us is the Nietzsche-est of them all, and play piñata with some poor guy who says morality comes from God...

I guess they're not necessarily the same. "The right thing to do" may not necessarily be a good thing to do - let's say, for example, you had to kill a baby in order to save a building full of people's lives, and it was the absolute only way. Many people would concede that in order to save more lives it was the "right" thing to do, but that doesn't mean killing the baby was a good thing.

[Zoboyizakoplayoklot]

Right simply means what someone agrees with, and good can be defined by moral opinion. Thus, for the most part, anything that you conceive as good, you will perceive as right.

On top of that, perceptions of right and wrong change greatly across cultures and demographics, so it is very easy for people to disagree and n what is right, wrong, bad, good

[Pope Joan]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said "right strives with right".
He was asked "What should a person do who is harboring a Jew, if the Nazi authorities knock on his door and demand whether he has any knowledge of the whereabouts of that Jew?" To tell a lie is a sin. To expose innocent people to torture and death is also a sin. He said he would tell the lie and say he knew nothing about anybody. So he would commit a sin, but would trust that a merciful God would answer his prayers for forgiveness. so the lie was still wrong, but it was necessary.

Bonhoeffer conspired to kill Hitler. That is a sin and a great crime. You cannot call yourself good if you are a murderer. But it can still be right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One of them thar 1 am questions that keeps one up at night turning your brain in circles.

Simply put, is good and right mutually exclusive? If something, or someone, is good, does that make that action, or that person, automatically right (Right as in correct, not right wing)? If not, just what is the difference between the two?

Now for me, I kept going back to the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, (or the one). For me, this shows that a right action (elevating the many over the few or one) may not be a GOOD action. The usual trolley question shows this off perfectly. The one you send the trolley at would not see your action as good (and even if so, it's unlikely that his or her family would), but saving lives would seem to be a correct course of action.

But then we get into the thicket of defining what would be a good and/or right action since it seems to be relative to your own position. Then again, that way leads to an endless loop of moral relativism where you might as well conclude 'screw it, I'ma gonna hit someone over the head and have my way with that gender of preference as it's good and right for me.'

That, however, sounds fairly wrong too.

So where do you fall on this? Same, different, how so?

Go!

In my opinion:

Some actions are good and right.

Some actions are good but not right.

Some actions are not good, but they are right.

And some actions are neither good, nor right.

[The Grim Reaper]

My take is that a person is objectively right within a set of subjectively good values.

So if they value the many over the few, they can be objectively 'righteous' by applying those values consistently. But that doesn't mean the values are good, or more importantly. that it's possible to be right within those values. If you state that it is always indefensible to lie, and always indefensible to hurt someone's feelings, it's easy to conceive of a situation where both actions could be considered good by others, but you yourself cannot consider yourself righteous.

For example, if a friend asks you if they've put on weight, and they have, and you are aware that they have been trying to lose weight - lying would protect their feelings and the cost of obscuring the truth, whilst telling them the truth would help them understand their situation but hurt their feelings, whilst you know they would interpret silence as the truth by omission.

[East Gondwana]

Well, if we take the classic trolley dilemma, the individual must make a choice (as inaction is also a choice, though some may argue it's not, but that's another question altogether): allowing the trolley to continue kills 5 people, changing its course kills 1. The "correct" choice according to conventional morality (which is what I'm using because I'm not getting into a debate about moral relativism) is to minimise death and suffering, and therefore kill the 1. BUT killing is wrong. However, there is no "right" choice, as both choices are morally wrong, but one would generally be considered to be morally "correct", or rather the most morally preferable or acceptable option available

[Seraven]

"I always do right actions, but sometimes not in a good way."

We can actually say that right or wrong are defined on actions, while good and bad is more closely related to morality.