English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You fell off the wagon, you hit your little sister, you broke a promise, you hit someone with a car, or took something that isn't yours, etc. The bad deed is done. Should the "Why you did it" be an important or mitigating factor? What's your opinion?

2007-08-04 08:24:32 · 4 answers · asked by greenwillowtrie 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

4 answers

yes, i think the "why" can be an important factor, it represents what is in your heart, and also what caused the event to happen
for instance, if you are having a bad day, or just want to be mean, or think its ok for the bigger to dominate the smaller, then that makes it very wrong to hit your little sister
on the other hand, if she is hitting you, taking your things, or you have asked her to leave you alone, then you do it, while still not right or good, it is more understandable
so i think the why often helps us explain ourselves to others, and also find understanding for ourselves,, we cant grow and change and eliminate our wrongs if we dont understand why we are doing them, what triggers us, what our motivations are

2007-08-04 09:51:50 · answer #1 · answered by dlin333 7 · 0 0

Your society tells you what is good and bad. I fell off the drinking wagon and had a drink at an Irish funeral in honor of my best friend who died. I hit a man with my car who was hurting someone and intended on killing them. I took a fish from the ocean and it wasn't mine. In all cases a why could be implied but it's still not stated. 'Why' cannot justify any action to society unless society deems it acceptable. A person drowned their children. When asked why they said that their children were possessed by demons and were going to kill the entire family. The person felt completely justified and noble for making the sacrifice they did. Did society accept the why? Why is this deed bad when the person was doing it within the belief that they were ridding mankind of evil? Don't we go to war with other nations under the same banner? Is that bad? Does the 'why' make a difference? Is it bad to shoot someone who breaks into your home intending to take your property? The good / bad list goes on forever and the 'why' may or may not justify it.

2007-08-04 15:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by @@@@@@@@ 5 · 2 0

It is said that morality is contextual. I can think of circumstances where killing, or lying, may be the moral thing to do. I am sure any other "sin" can be thus justified.

That said, there is the danger of rationalization. Malice causes damage in the world, but more damage is caused by negligence. Many people justify the evil they cause by "the other guy deserved it," or "I did not know." When you look into the situation, some people were lying to themselves, or not were willing to spend an effort. There are other traps and similar motivations, those mentioned are the most common.

For me, the important thing is that there are boundaries between people which cannot be crossed without good reason. A decent person, when causing damage to others, is willing to offer restitution where possible; an evil person does not.

2007-08-04 15:50:11 · answer #3 · answered by epistemology 5 · 2 0

Reasons are a very important factor because they define your perspective. The deed is still done and it remains so in the mental CV of that individual, but the gravity of the act can either be strengthened or weakened by the reason.

2007-08-04 18:58:45 · answer #4 · answered by Cheshire Riddle 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers