How much can we justify, what makes an action right or wrong?

Question

A woman was married and she loved her husband very much, and her husband was convicted of something he didn't do and his wife knew it. She also knew where she could get the information she needed to prove that he was innocent, but the man that had this information gave her a condition either sleep with him or she wasn't getting it. She quickly slept with him to get the information and she did and a few days later her husband was freed. The real bad guy was convicted and now she had to live with this. Was her act moral or immoral? Was she moral or immoral?

If one was getting ready to murder or harm your family and you had a gun would you use it to defend them or would you stand there and watch them be slaughtered? What about your church members, groups, society? Is there a clear and present danger there, and does that decide how moral something is or not? Would it be more immoral not to kill the person that was trying to harm you? These are the questions we are face.

One woman decided that it was better to smoother her baby rather then let the Indians find her and the settlers so easy when her baby started crying, as they were all scared and hiding out at this point, after this was over and they were all safe again she was punished by both church and community for this.

One couple before they had fertility treatments and all found out that the husband could not give the wife a baby so they went to the minister and talked him into doing it for them. He gave in and gave them a baby. They raised the baby happily ever after and the preacher was excommunicated.

So is severity or circomstances what we look at in what is punishable or not? How much punishment we ought to give to anyone in life? How deep is the Ocean how wide is the sea?

How about a lottery to decide who can live and who can die? Try U.S. v. Holmes, 26 Fed. Case No. 360 A shipwreck occurred and some of the passengers were in a lifeboat and there were to many of them, one of them said that it was getting to crowded so the men needed to get out, they wouldn't, one of the men then helped them by bodily force to do so then when they got to safety Holmes was tried and convicted of murder and given clemency. "To have a purpose for which one will do almost anything except betray a friend, that is the final patent of nobility, the last formula of the Superman." Nietzsche

"The bullfight is a miniature of life. Death is part of life, and it is an integral part of the bullfight. As in life, death hovers; it is ineviteable, if not for the man, certainly for the bull. And in life, each of us must eventually die. One of the things the matador is saying when he fights bravely is that the way we die is important, or that what is really important is how we live." Joseph Royce I say the way we live until we die is important! "Morality is on the side of the one with the heaviest artillery." Napolean

See the world, and knowledge grows;
As knowledge grows, thoughts are honest;
As thoughts are honest, the heart is good;
As the heart is good, the self is whole;
As the self is whole, the family is content;
As the family is content, the state is governed;
As the state is governed, the world is at peace. Confuscious

Answer 1

as much as you want

Answer 2

1. You can justify anything.
2. Don't let your motives or anything that has happened to you personally affect your opinion of what is right.
3. Don't let a little poem or what other people say justify what is right. Decide on your own.

If you want my imput in all those little scenarios, here they are:

1. The woman and her act were moral. She did not love the other man, thus did not make love. Her main concern was her husband.
2. Killing the guy would be moral. Murder is not necessarily immoral. Defending a good life rather than a bad one is almost as if you killed two birds with one stone.
3. The woman was moral. Taking one good life to save two good lives makes perfect sense.
4. Just do what your role is. The preacher should not have done that.

So that's my imput for some of them. My opinion, because I justified it in my own way, while someone else might justify it in another.

It is all perspective. Lets say two men are friends. Man 1 decides to be independent from society and act the way he wants. A month later, Man 2 does the same. Then a week later, Man 1 decides he should trust society's views on some things and decides to conform.

Now, in Man 2's perspective, Man 1 had been on the right course and fallen to society and pressure.

However in Man 1's perspective, Man 1 has been on this course for a month now, dropped out because it seems necessary, and Man 2 is following the same course, only a month behind. Man 1 has more knowledge and experience, so he would know what is right over Man 2, who is just now maturing through the same stage.

Each side can be argued very well. You can justify ANYTHING.

I do not believe or think these things are right, but that means you can justify war, the Holocaust, terrorism, rape, sex, violence, suicide, and murder.

Answer 3

Loosely put, in all real translations of the term, What we want to be, to exist, and to happen is right and what we do not want is wrong. If we want it, it's good. If we don't want it, it's evil. If you'll really look in your heart for all the times and situations people have used these words, you'll find this definition to hold it's ground. People's wants and needs vary and so what is right to one person can be very wrong to another and vice versa. Is a poor child in a market wrong for taking food to eat? After all they were about to die the other day if it wasn't for those few pellets of rice they ate after they found them in their own defecation. The more you really look into it, the more evident it becomes that right and wrong are nothing more than points of view. So to my mind, justification of right and wrong are that if this action contributes, it's a good action. If it takes away or harms, it's a bad action. Based on whichever fact is most prevalent. If you have a splinter in your foot, you would be taking away, but the fact that it first and foremost is contributing to a happier you is the point that should be focused upon. So to state it even simpler, Take the main point of focus aka the main outcome of whatever action is in question and simply ask, Will things be better after this, or worse after this? Better means it's a good action, worse means it's a bad action. The only thing to be kept in mind here is that better insinuates better for everyone, or atleast the main or most important point of focus. Such varies from person to person. If you could do something that helps you or something that helps another, it's whatever you feel most comfortable with that is the best action for you. Therefore it's whichever fact makes you most content with the outcome. You can't go wrong.

Answer 4

Anyone can justify anything to a certain extent. The main thing to ask is will your God or higher power find your actions to be just? Most people claim to believe in a higher power, so that should be their motivation. No matter what you do here on this earth someone will judge you and your actions. Inevitably you will have to pay for something that is not right, whether it be in money or other consequence, but if you can look yourself in the mirror and be OK with who you are and what actions you have taken, then that is what matters most. (unless of course you are a sociopath. Then there might be a problem.)

Answer 5

It can be very difficult to know if we really are going to be wrong or right about a certain action in the moral or ethical sense. If one comes from an upbringing that encouraged insecurity of ones own thoughts, then a person will find themselves being wrong more often than not, and will not be able to feel successful. Also, overconfidence in our judgment can make us think we are right more often that we actually are, and in the long term we will fail.

So my answer would be that wrong or right action is justified by how much we think that we are personally "wrong" or "right" as individual human beings, which depends on our past experiences and upbringing.

My definition of "right" actions thus depend on what is a "right" way of looking at the world - as defined by our qualities as individuals - i.e. the qualities of a "right" person. The "right" way of looking at things will not create ambiguity in the perceived "rightness" of our actions. Thus, in this state, we will feel that all of our actions are right, and therefore feel that there isn't even such a thing as "wrong."

So justify yourself as a person, and all your actions will automatically be right. But what is a right person? Perhaps Jesus or Buddah or something.

Or, perhaps the act or thoughts involved in making sure that we are not wrong - due to our common insecurity of whether or not we are a "right" person - is the cause of "wrongness" in itself.

My head hurts.

Answer 6

In the end, we must all experience the consequences of our actions, whatever the intent or innocence behind them. It is the natural law; cause and effect or action and reaction. Everyhting we do puts events in motion that have an effect on other people in some way, shape or form. Inevitably we have to experience what others experienced when we played out the experiences of our lives.

Rather than asking what makes action right or wrong, we could ask "Can I live with the consequences of this choice or decision?"

Answer 7

I will say this. Self-justification is a science.

Deception does yield at least outright denial and at best, self-justification.

A little bit of carbon mixed with iron makes a powerful metal, which is steel. But a little bit of truth mixed with an otherwise lie makes a powerful deception.

Living during the 18th and19th Centuries, the author Maria Edgeworth wrote an essay titled, An Essay on the Noble Science of Self-Justification.

She was doted on by her father who educated her well in the home and in the schools. She idolized him. The eldest of several siblings, she was a pivotal influence on her younger charges. And later went on to become an educator and pedagogue and great writer.

Go to and engage this essay. She covers the matter well.

Answer 8

Sometimes the end does justify the means. If we have no other alternative we do what we have to. I'm not a violent person but if someone were harming a loved one, I would do everything in my power to stop it, and I mean everything.
But the next question is can you live with your decision, that's the hard part.

Answer 9

Jean-Paul Sartre, existentialist : "we are alone on our rock. We (are by definition)responsible for our lives and those of all humanity. We must choose our morals, and always do, for even in not choosing, we choose. And we choose for all of humanity for we know , that if we do such or such thing, then it is right, therefore right for everyone.
There are no pre-determined morals. Existence precedes essence. Meaning, man must live, and then describe what he has done /define what he is. Just like a painter on his canvas.
He can only define and describe his work of art once it is finished.

Answer 10

It depends on the action! If the action will not have the potential to either harm or help anyone other than yourself; Justify away! But if others will be affected by the results of your decision, then you had better think very carefully about it!!

Answer 11

It depends a lot on whether you believe in God. As you can see from many of the other answers, most people really don't have much of a basis on which to measure right and wrong. The word for it is relativism. Those who believe in God, however, have very little trouble telling right from wrong, because God himself is the standard.