"Everyone did what they thought was right."

[Dr. Tarrasque]

49 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I hope I'm not the only one to whom this scene is brought to mind.

 

So I guess given that scene is the first thing I think about I have to say bad thing...? I think? Is a neutral shit happens answer a valid response? Like isn't that the way the world is by default? Very few people think they're not justified in the things they do.

Lol that sound effect of their steps when they're back at the base.

I'm gonna go with it being a "bad thing". Obviously the severity depends on the context but you usually see this phrasing in cases where it's evident that something took place that is regrettable despite good intentions or simply thinking that they were doing the right thing. What is interpreted as the "right thing to do" among the masses is corruptible and people who see themselves as righteous can and have amassed enough support to commit atrocities they know are horrible but are being done "for the greater good" or "the end justifies the means". There's also the element of selfishness and ignorance: Were your supposed good intentions selfish or selfless? What makes you think YOU know what is truly "right"?

There's a lot more that could be said about it but I'll keep it brief lol.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Jotari]

58 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Lol that sound effect of their steps when they're back at the base.

I'm gonna go with it being a "bad thing". Obviously the severity depends on the context but you usually see this phrasing in cases where it's evident that something took place that is regrettable despite good intentions or simply thinking that they were doing the right thing. What is interpreted as the "right thing to do" among the masses is corruptible and people who see themselves as righteous can and have amassed enough support to commit atrocities they know are horrible but are being done "for the greater good" or "the end justifies the means". There's also the element of selfishness and ignorance: Were your supposed good intentions selfish or selfless? What makes you think YOU know what is truly "right"?

There's a lot more that could be said about it but I'll keep it brief lol.

I should have watched the entire video XD Only the first part was really relevant to the conversation.

[Noni]

So I wanted to answer "Neutral Thing", since it usually depends on what they thought, was the good thing and not on whether they did, what they considered good.

Since I can't do that, I answered "Good Thing", since the Alternative is people doing, what they think is wrong, maybe cause they're selfish or too troll people. And when people deliberately do, what they see as wrong, the chance,  that it's actually wrong is higher. No one does the right thing by accident, while thinking they are doing the right thing.

[Excellen Browning]

At first I thought that I was neutral, then I realized that in my experience, all who say this exact thing use it to excuse bad behaviour or bad outcomes. So put me down for bad thing.

[Zanarkin]

2 hours ago, Noni said:

No one does the right thing by accident, while thinking they are doing the right thing.

I don't think i necessarily agree... Your assumptions as to why something is the right thing could be wrong, but when you do it happens to result in a good thing. I don't have any example I can bring up in the moment, but I feel very suspicious of this statement. There are cases where you can arrive at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. It happens a lot in games like Mafia and Among Us

 

Also, I really hope Anonymous Speed clarifies what this pseudo scientific test is at some point. Though something tells me he won't.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Zanarkin

[Stones]

I think it's a good thing.

Let's assume that there's a group of people who are going to do different things. Each "thing" is good or bad, but no one KNOWS for sure whether they are doing something that is right or wrong, they can only decide based on their own opinions and morals and everything.

There are 3 possible situations here. Number 1 is that everyone does things they believe is wrong, Number 2 is that some people do things they think is right and some people do things they think is wrong, and Number 3 is that everyone does things they believe is right. Obviously, 3 is the best situation we have.

This is really just a convoluted way to say, they best thing we can hope for people is to do what they think is right. Even if what they do is actually wrong, surely that is better than them doing things they think is not right? If "everyone doing what they think is right" is a bad thing, then what is a good thing?

The way the OP was phrased does make it seem like an excuse for a bad thing, but I don't think that was what was intended when it was written.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 3/14/2021 at 10:31 PM, Florete said:

"What they thought was right for them" or "what they thought was right for everyone"?

I think you may be conflating "right" with "beneficial." The question was about right in a moralistic sense, which typically defines who things should be "right" for.

On 3/15/2021 at 12:32 AM, eclipse said:

If a question has to be that vague to judge, then I'm going to assume that it's not a question in good faith.  So I won't answer.

18 hours ago, Stones said:

The way the OP was phrased does make it seem like an excuse for a bad thing, but I don't think that was what was intended when it was written.

I intended it with the utmost disinterest and clinical curiosity. I have my own opinion, but that did not influence the phrasing. I stole the phrasing from a community post. I actually avoided going into too much detail with what I meant because I was concerned my explanations would be obfuscating and biased. A simple, pungent phrase seemed more effective for getting the point across. That may have been a mistaken approach but it's a bit late to go back on that now. There's probably something interesting to be gleaned from what people thought it meant whether it was really what I was asking.

On 3/15/2021 at 12:12 AM, Sooks said:

Okay but that sort of context is actually vital for understanding the question. Just based on the phrase, got it. A bad thing it is.

On 3/15/2021 at 6:22 AM, Jotari said:

Like isn't that the way the world is by default? Very few people think they're not justified in the things they do.

Very true. I take it to mean be about whether people "should" more often "listen" to their inward conscience or external behavioral guidelines.

That is also why there is no "context," because then it would become about the right or wrong thing to do in a specific scenario, which I don't think is the heart of the question.

On 3/15/2021 at 1:09 AM, Dandy Druid said:

I think this experiment has to do with negativity? I'm not familiar with this experiment, but is that what you're trying to discern?

On 3/15/2021 at 3:02 PM, Zanarkin said:

Also, I really hope Anonymous Speed clarifies what this pseudo scientific test is at some point. Though something tells me he won't.

I'll get around to it, but I don't want to cut off the experiment too early. I may give it another day or two.

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I intended it with the utmost disinterest and clinical curiosity. I have my own opinion, but that did not influence the phrasing. I stole the phrasing from a community post. I actually avoided going into too much detail with what I meant because I was concerned my explanations would be obfuscating and biased. A simple, pungent phrase seemed more effective for getting the point across. That may have been a mistaken approach but it's a bit late to go back on that now. There's probably something interesting to be gleaned from what people thought it meant whether it was really what I was asking.

Oh, you can get all sorts of interesting answers from my refusal to answer.  I think it'll be more telling than if I actually answered the question.

However, being overly vague and saying "you can tell a lot by a person's worldview" is extremely sketchy.  I can get a lot from someone's worldview by asking neutral questions.  Unlike this, neutral questions have a more direct answer, and aren't as open to bastardry by the person who asked (since it's easy enough to claim "I meant this" with plausible deniability because the premise is so open to interpretation).  Just something to keep in mind if you ever decide to do this again~!

That being said, I'm interested in the results, too.

[Shrimpolaris]

Although context of course mattes, i will listen it as a ''good thing'' here, and for one main reason:

You can't force your beliefs and ideals on others. 

As some posters already said, Free Will is an integral part of humanity. Even if it leads to clashes and alot of evil, it also leads to unity and alot of progress.

What is right and wrong differs from person to person, society to society, culture to culture, and as someone who lived in and visited multipe places (and plan to visit more) i've seen those clashes with my own eyes. Yet i wouldn't take it away for the world.

Of course i will continue to do what i think is right, but i will never do it in such a way to interfere on others freedom or force my beliefs and ideals on them.

This is a line that should not so be easily crossed.

Or i am just too positive and don't wanna see OP as an upcoming conquerer of doom xD

Edited March 17, 2021 by Shrimperor

[Clear World]

When ever I hear that phase, it's usually an attempted excuse for a bad result, like a bunch of avoidable deaths or physical & emotional hardships caused by someone's actions. So basically, that phase has been tainted for me overall.

Though, I do use a similar phase whenever I'm trying to attempt to talk to someone who I know has a different alignment/viewpoint from me who I think support/believe/defend something that is awful. Though, I try to use it appear like I'm not trying to attack them. I don't know how effective it actually is when attempting to bridge the gap. 

... Oh, also there is this:

When someone says "everyone thinks they are right,", they are trying to relativize and/or dismiss your argument (typically because they can't refute it). 

It's probably true that everyone (or at least most) thinks they are right. That's why psychological confidence in one's faith is not enough. Something more is needed. There is no interested in knowing that someone believes their view is right. There's in interest in knowing why they believe their view is right. This requires evidence. We must weigh the evidence to determine who has better reasons support their view. Even then, no one might be right or maybe everyone is right.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Clear World

[Jotari]

33 minutes ago, Clear World said:

It's probably true that everyone (or at least most) thinks they are right. That's why psychological confidence in one's faith is not enough. Something more is needed. There is no interested in knowing that someone believes their view is right. There's in interest in knowing why they believe their view is right. This requires evidence. We must weigh the evidence to determine who has better reasons support their view. Even then, no one might be right or maybe everyone is right.

Very eloquently put. That's what I was trying to grasp at with my neutral shit happens comment, but you put it a lot better than I did.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Eclipse is basically 100% correct about this.

I think the issue is contextual enough and will be interpreted in enough different ways that the results are not actually useful.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 3/17/2021 at 1:47 AM, eclipse said:

Just something to keep in mind if you ever decide to do this again~!

On 3/18/2021 at 9:17 PM, Defeatist Elitist said:

I think the issue is contextual enough and will be interpreted in enough different ways that the results are not actually useful.

Probably would have been even more helpful if I had actually asked a second question to see if there was any correlation between answers, but if you want to start improving the experimental design you can think of all sorts of things to do and then you end up having to put in actual effort. I'm just not ready for that level of commitment to a forum thread.

***

On 3/15/2021 at 3:02 PM, Zanarkin said:

Also, I really hope Anonymous Speed clarifies what this pseudo scientific test is at some point. Though something tells me he won't.

Anyway, guess I gotta make a liar out of you at some point, and it doesn't look like we're getting any more answers.

I was actually interested to see if there'd be a correlation between answers to the question and political affiliation. Of course, I later realized I'm only vaguely aware of the political attitudes of some of the respondents, so that sort of threw a wrench in there. I could have asked people to identify themselves politically (thanks to @Benice for stating something of an affiliation though), but I don't know if people would be all too eager to oust themselves as being one ideology or the other. I did care more about just seeing what people would say than actually extracting a trend.

***

On 3/17/2021 at 9:51 AM, Shrimperor said:

As some posters already said, Free Will is an integral part of humanity.

Free will doesn't exist. I think there was a thread about that at some point but I didn't bother with it.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Free will doesn't exist. I think there was a thread about that at some point but I didn't bother with it.

Ah so Serenes posters managed to solve an age old question that has been debated since the birth of philosophy. Good on us.

[AnonymousSpeed]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ah so Serenes posters managed to solve an age old question that has been debated since the birth of philosophy. Good on us.

Y'all probably didn't. Like I said though, I didn't actually read the thread.

[Noni]

On 3/15/2021 at 8:02 PM, Zanarkin said:

I don't think i necessarily agree... Your assumptions as to why something is the right thing could be wrong, but when you do it happens to result in a good thing. I don't have any example I can bring up in the moment, but I feel very suspicious of this statement. There are cases where you can arrive at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. It happens a lot in games like Mafia and Among Us

 

Also, I really hope Anonymous Speed clarifies what this pseudo scientific test is at some point. Though something tells me he won't.

Upps, I had a Typo. I meant to say "No one does the right thing by accident, while thinking they aren't doing the right thing."

Edited March 26, 2021 by Noni

[Zanarkin]

On 3/24/2021 at 11:02 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

I was actually interested to see if there'd be a correlation between answers to the question and political affiliation. Of course, I later realized I'm only vaguely aware of the political attitudes of some of the respondents, so that sort of threw a wrench in there.

you could post guesses on each poster's political affiliations and then make an anonymous poll asking how right you were

9 hours ago, Noni said:

Upps, I had a Typo. I meant to say "No one does the right thing by accident, while thinking they aren't doing the right thing."

I still feel like that could be wrong. Like doing the 'wrong thing' might end up being a good thing. A case that comes to mind is one example of a problem Kantian ethics has. Lying is wrong in Kantian ethics, yet it might lead to a good thing if you are lying to protect somebody whose life might be in danger. For example if you are hiding someone from a murderer, you shouldn't admit to hiding them when the murderer asks you about them.  In this case you are saving an innocent life, yet you are lying which if you follow Kantian ethics, that would be wrong.

Ethics is messy. From Wikipedia, this might make the example a little more clear:

Quote

Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative provides us with the maxim that we ought not to lie in any circumstances, even if we are trying to bring about good consequences, such as lying to a murderer to prevent them from finding their intended victim. Kant argued that, because we cannot fully know what the consequences of any action will be, the result might be unexpectedly harmful. Therefore, we ought to act to avoid the known wrong—lying—rather than to avoid a potential wrong. If there are harmful consequences, we are blameless because we acted according to our duty.^[97] Driver argues that this might not be a problem if we choose to formulate our maxims differently: the maxim 'I will lie to save an innocent life' can be universalized. However, this new maxim may still treat the murderer as a means to an end, which we have a duty to avoid doing. Thus we may still be required to tell the truth to the murderer in Kant's example.

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Zanarkin

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Zanarkin said:

you could post guesses on each poster's political affiliations and then make an anonymous poll asking how right you were

That actually sounds like fun, though I'm not sure if serious discussion is the place where fun is meant to exist.

[AnonymousSpeed]

7 hours ago, Zanarkin said:

you could post guesses on each poster's political affiliations and then make an anonymous poll asking how right you were

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

That actually sounds like fun, though I'm not sure if serious discussion is the place where fun is meant to exist.

I agree, that would be kinda fun. As this is an internet forum, every darn part of it better for fun.

That said, I don't know if that would actually help us establish any trends. I need each respondents answers- both at the same time as a pair. Furthermore, I only have an inkling for, like...8 people. Further furthermore, said inklings aren't actually all that specific. Political labels get thrown around a lot but they contain several incompatible ideas with contradictory metaphysics.

7 hours ago, Zanarkin said:

Ethics is messy. From Wikipedia, this might make the example a little more clear:

Ethics is like free will- it's not actually complicated, but people don't want to admit it because the simple conclusions are initially uncomfortable.

[eclipse]

On 3/24/2021 at 5:02 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

I was actually interested to see if there'd be a correlation between answers to the question and political affiliation.

If you want an idea of where I am politically, the General Politics thread should give you some idea.

That being said, I'm going to say "no", because of the vague nature of the question.  If you want a more interesting experiment, invoke fear instead.  It's not necessarily ethical (and if you truly consider this, maybe run it by me first), but if the last study was right, it should provide a bit more of a divide.