do we have to do the right thing? ( Ethics)?

Question

Hi I'm new to yahoo answers. I need help with my philosophy debate. The subject is "Do we have to do the right thing?" and I'm For it. It might sound easy but it really isn't. I need 3-4 strong points please and thank you.

Sorry the subject is we must do the right thing. I'm in immersion I can't translate very well.

Answer 1

Doing the right thing? From what perspective? From the Utiliarian position from where 'doing the right (moral) thing' is that which brings about an overall rise in happiness to the greatest number (humans). From the Deontological approach doing the right (moral) thing in each and every situation. From the Kantian point of view 'doing the right (moral) thing is doing that which you believe should be regarded as a universal law. There are many other approaches even those that say there are no 'right' and 'wrong' thibngs, only perspectives (individual ones at that). And of course there is determinism that believes that all things are fated, that you cannot be held as morally responsible for your actions and therefore do no right or wrong.
Welcome to the world of philosophy!

Answer 2

I actually was thinking the same as Jasumi (we usually do for some reason). I can't understand why she got 4 thumbs down. What she says is true. Since we share the same viewpoint I'll clarify her answer. When she said gay marriage, abortion, lying is morally wrong....well it is. Morals are not mandatory. They are simply some idea that a power hungry society came up with. And different societies have different morals. In Thailand it's morally sound to have sex with another man. Ethically (which is what the individual thinks), there is nothing wrong with gay marriage or abortion for some people, and for others it's the opposite. I think people just feel they have to live by morals but they don't. We need to follow our own ethics and be true to who we are.

Answer 3

i like the answer that said ..no one can be perfect all of the time.
I think you will know what this means;As well as yourself,
you can never really know(never really/perfectly know)
that those teaching or showing you,say by example,whether
they are doing the "right thing".

i follow Popper's conclusion that says we are all imperfect
(=fallible); But we need not give up our heros(precisely
because they are imperfect ones).
Nor ultimately ones code;For your code and mine is also
imperfect(some other code may preach violence and thus
show itself inhuman and wrong).

How difficult it is to"do the right thing" is shown by the
fact that certain rules-of-behavior remain relevant for us as
they were for the ancients- the christian "example" and
parable of the stranger who helped another; and who did Not
"walk on the other side of the road".

(Personally, i think that this example above is closely connected with the ethics and code involved in teaching-
especially western teaching.)

And no ethics ends there; we can and much more importantly,we must(continue to) progress in our rules and
codes;in the field of law we do this,as we change and make
better and more relevant laws(and this could be for at
least changing conditions,as say,increasing population
changes conditions).
And if our environment is being changed for the worst,then
we have a duty to engage presently- in doing so some of
us choose to concentrate on highlighting the mistakes
made in the past.Whilst trying to make known the important
and causal ones( whilst sifting and isolating those mistakes
we cannot learn from).
Hope this provides some useful point(er)s for you!
with

Answer 4

No; there's a difference between 'should' and 'must.'

For one thing, not everyone agrees on the 'right' thing; furthermore, even for the same person the 'right' thing might vary from one situation to another.

Second, the idea of 'having' to do something implies that some other entity can somehow compel this. This is problematic not only because their idea of the 'right' thing might be different, but because it is wrong (generally speaking) to force ones will upon others.

Third, if people do the 'right' thing only because they are compelled to; then choosing the right action has no value because one can not distinguish truly ethical persons from the merely compliant.

Answer 5

personally, i think that the question you're to answer in your debate is very vague for two reasons; first, because defining what is right and wrong is the first issue and that is pretty much an endless debate in and of itself( is killing someone wrong?-yes? what if they are a child molestor who has vowed to keep doing it? then no it's not wrong to kill them because they are going to keep harming innocent people. what if they are crazy and can't stop themselves? then yes it is wrong because they don't know what they are doing, and so on ad infinitum) .

Second, establishing that there is an absolute right and wrong thing doesn't necessarily mean that we are forced to follow it because there is the issue of freewill(which is also an endless debate as to whether it exists or not) and we may have the right to behave badly if we want to (we just have to suffer the consequences if and when we get caught). so i guess this second part is what you are looking for as far as your question.

my personal belief is that the existence of an absolute right and wrong is contingent on whether there is an absolute moral law giver (a God), basically, if god exists then it probably has some set of things/rules/laws that it says are right, and we can choose to follow them (freewill) but if we don't we have to suffer the consequences (hell).

If a God doesn't exist, then there really are no absolute rights or wrongs (morality) and all the things that we in our society culture believe are right or wrong are just a product of the particular time/culture/place we happen to live in. And if you look at history, people have always had different ideas of what right or wrong is, even now, you may go to one culture somewhere in the world and unexpectedly offend someone because you broke some moral code.

so i agree with you that it's not an easy answer, assuming that you guys have already established that there are right or wrong things, my argument would be that "No we don't have to do them if we don't want to, but we have to deal with a society that disagrees with us".

hope that helps, good luck!

Answer 6

What is taken for granted, and is almost invisible, is that questions like these always assume AN AIM! You NEED to take the garbage out...ASSUMING your aim is to NOT live in a house where garbage piles up on the inside. You NEED to do your homework...IF your aim is to not get an F in your class. You need to treat people decently...IF you want to be a decent person yourself. The IF part is always assumed and thus never really noticed.

Answer 7

Everything we do, is the right thing to do, no-mater whether its wrong to others, or to us. We are a product of that what is around us. We are influenced by the cultures, beliefs and laws that influence our everyday activities. If it where not for those whom do wrong, we would not know the meaning of right. We can teach by example. We can preach by practice, but we can never guarantee that of those we teach, will follow. There are no rules to life, other than living, The rest is make believe. k x

Answer 8

Read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis it might help you...or look up the utalitarian or Aristotle's philosophys...they will help you...look at Ayn Rand because those philosophies will be against you

Answer 9

You don't HAVE to do the right thing, we do have the free will to do all the non-ethical things we want. However I think humans have the unconscious desire to be ethical whether the follow it or not.

Answer 10

I dont get what you mean by the right thing?...just in general every right thing in the world?????..i guess its good for everyone to try to do the right thing...but no one can be perfect all the time.