Clear as mud.
Heather Corinna writes in part in her blog (Feb 20th, 2003 – #2) about trying to resolve her Buddhist philosophy with the current actions of America on the world scene.
Of particular interest to me was this segment:
I very clearly know that I’m not okay with doing “the right thing for the wrong reasons”, something Kinneret brought up in the comments to an entry a few days back, isn’t okay with me. I’m certain a preemptive strike is not the right thing regardless, but I’m absolutely certain that the right thing is only the right thing when it is done for the right reasons. As a person, as a Buddhist.
One of the things I’ve heard from friends is that while we may not feel that Bush is going in for the right reason, we should still go in because Saddam is dangerous and it’s wrong to leave him in power. So, while Bush is wrong in his reasons for going in, he’s right to go in.
I have to admit that while I disagreed that it was right to go in with the wrong reasons, I never quite managed to frame it the way that Heather managed to. Perhaps because I’m of a nebulous religious background and haven’t devoted myself to any particular philosophy. If my English degree taught me anything, it’s that a religious background makes for a wealth of symbols and philosophies with which to express oneself (The Divine Comedy, Piers Plowman, and Murder in the Cathedral, to name just a few works).
But this particular framing introduced something else into the discussion for me.
The question at hand: Is it wrong to do something right for the wrong reason?
And my initial reaction: Yes.
One definition of the word “sin” is “the action, the full advertence of the intellect, and the full consent of the will.” Or, as George Carlin so eloquently put it: “You have to wanna.”
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
First, I ask myself: Is it possible to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing for the right reason?
I steal a loaf of bread. It is a “sin” to steal. It is illegal. It is unacceptable behavior in society. If everybody just took a loaf of bread from whoever already had it, then society would not work. A loaf of bread, of course, is a consumable. I steal it from somebody who already has it, and the chances are very slight that they will ever see it again.
But if I steal the loaf of bread to feed my family, is it wrong? If I am bouncing around the job market, going from interview to interview and constantly being told that I’m “just not what they’re looking for,” all the while watching my welfare benefits end as the government tries to force me off of my “lazy ass,” is there truly something wrong to taking the loaf? When I have no health care to save my children from the effects of malnutrition and I have no money to provide food, can it truly be said that it is wrong to steal the bread?
Is it illegal? Yes. Is it unacceptable in a civilized society? Yes. Should I be arrested? Probably.
Am I right to do it? Yes.
The theft of the bread is not out of greed – it is out of necessity and the desire to help others – in this case, my family. Now, there’s additional material to consider. Suppose that the bread that I stole was bought with the family’s last paycheck? Suppose that family is in just as bad a shape as mine, and that loaf of bread was the only food they had for their table?
But from my perspective, I’m unable to know any of this. Even should any of these be the true case, my actions are still motivated by good intentions (and I have heard about the pavement on the road to Hell – it’s just not the way I think). I did not steal the bread to be mean. I did not steal it to be cruel. I stole it because I was watching my family being denied the means to live. I stole it because the system is not set up to take care of us, no matter how we try. I stole it so that my children could live for another day.
(Should anybody be reaching for the phone to call the Police, I should point out that all of the above is hypothetical. I have no children, I am not starving, and I have never stolen a loaf of bread.)
Yes. Stealing the loaf of bread is the wrong thing to do – but the reason behind it makes it right. The right reason makes the action the correct action to take while not making it legal or truly “right.”
Another example. I am elected to the highest office in the land. While in office, something terrible happens, suggesting that the people who have elected me are no longer safe. In order to make them safe, I pass legislation allowing searches and surveillance that are Constitutionally prohibited and I effectively revoke the rights of free speach and assembly.
Action: Allow illegal search and surveillance while quashing free speech and the right to assemble. Reason: Protect the American people.
The action is wrong, but the reason is right. So, am I right? Only if I truly, honestly intend to protect the American people, and only if that view is shared by everybody involved in the action. However, while I may be right to do it, I should still be ejected from office, accused of violating my terms of office (which include protecting the Constitution), put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to a nice long stay in a white-collar prison while all of the laws I have passed are quickly nullified and the people have their rights of speech and assembly returned to them.
Right is right. And illegal is illegal. If I steal the bread, it doesn’t matter if it’s right or it’s wrong – it’s illegal. I may be right, but I should be willing to go to jail for being right. Similarly, if I betray the principles of my home country for the “right” reason, I should still be willing to face the consequences for that betrayal.
Now, let’s take a look at the other side of this.
If I do the right thing for the wrong reason, does that make me wrong?
The answer that I see is: Yes.
I run a large corporation. I offer a very attractive severance package to a man who works for me. Alternately, if the package is not accepted, then the worker has to realize that his job is about to be terminated. He will remain in the company, but he may have to remain under different terms and may find that his new position will not have the power or benefits of his current position. His job will be terminated, and the duties split between pre-existing positions. While I say I’m doing this to save the corporation money, the fact is that I’m offering these choices because the worker in question is advanced in years and I feel personally that old people drag a corporation down, they can’t be trained, and they should be “put out to pasture.” I apply this profile to my worker, even though his record is flawless and there’s no sign that he has slowed down from the time he came here.
Now, what I have done is legal (although it is something that could be challenged in court). But I’ve done it because I’m ageist. The so-called “right” thing to do, but a very wrong reason.
Another example.
In the Middle East, there is a very powerful dictator. He is harsh and cruel. He uses his own people in his weapons experiments. He oppresses women, and he’s developing weapons that the international community has banned him from developing. In most peoples’ minds, it is the right thing to do to go in and remove this dictator.
I send my army in to remove him because his country has rich oil deposits, I want a popularity boost, and the dictator once called my daddy names and made him look bad.
Right thing to do, and my reasons are wrong, wrong, and wrong.
That’s my logic so far. Feel free to point out any errors in it (I’m sure my brother will take me up on it). After all, writing this was part of my discovery process. If there are problems with the argument, please let me know.
And before you point it out to me – no. I do not believe that Bush okayed illegal search and surveillance and repealed our rights to free speech and assembly because he wanted to protect us. I believe he did those things because of power madness, firm belief in a “divine right,” a desire to control the media, and a wish to prove to the world that he had “the mandate of the people” – in that order.
So – invade Iraq? Not while Bush is the one calling the shots.
If we seek to liberate Iraq – supposedly a noble goal – then why are we prepared to set up just as bad a dictatorship, as long as it’s US-friendly? If we want to liberate the people of Iraq, then why are we currently removing the liberties usually enjoyed by the American people?
If it’s not about the oil, then why is an old oil man the most vocal proponent of the action? And why is the US Army concerned over the idea that Iraq might set fire to its oil wells? And why is the military trying to develop a contingency plan for just such an event?
And why are we so vocal about Saddam’s alleged attempts at hiding his alleged weapons program when North Korea has been openly vocal about their weapons program?
right action + wrong reason = wrong action.
Oy. My head hurts.
February 22nd, 2003 at 5:32 am
You’ve arrived at a conclusion very similar to mine. When one does the right thing for the wrong reasons, one is unlikely to do the follow-through.
February 25th, 2003 at 11:56 am
If someone steps on your foot, does it matter if they meant to or not? The net result is your foot hurts. You brilliantly express the “two evils” decision we face. So does it boil down to which perspective you wish to take? In a universe which seems to defy absolute Right or Truth, a Resolution I fear takes on a nasty symmetry of denial. The cycle repeats.