Do what is right or what is needed?

[Draken Benvolaid]

Just some thoughts to a question that I can't answer...
If you can please post something.

What should one truly try to accomplish, what is right or what is needed? Each hold different outcomes whichever you pursue. The right holds is correct in understanding at the time, while the needed holds what is correct in the coming future. What you may think is right, may not be for the impending future. This question alone has plagued me for years since birth…, maybe even before then… It has never once been easy no matter how many times I must make it.
Should one save the girl’s life or let it be used to find the kidnapper’s hideout, stopping them forever?
Should one keep fighting to the end or retreat saving the lives of your soldiers; surviving to fight another day?
Should one prevent a war to keep people alive or let it happen, knowing that it will put an end to all conflicts for the coming generations, down a better path in life?

Is it time or place that makes the decisions different for each person? Will waiting and biding time make the decisions different or make them harder to make; limiting your possibilities?
Even when you look past the problem to the place where the answers are or could be, there is still no easy way to make the decision. Do you send your forces to battle where they may lose, just to give other units time to attack or do you withdraw them, keeping them alive in order to mount a safer, yet less effective attack? Which is it?
How will the world handle your decision? Will they look down upon it, or praise you for your efforts? Will the choices you make be beneficial to the world or will it hurt it more than help? Will the people who die because of your judgment just become more numbers to the public, or will it cause other to hate you for their lives?
Because of my incoherent decisions, I’ve been called both a savior and a heretic… a hero and a monster… both human and inhuman… You are supposed to grow cold to things after a while, yet why can’t I to these decisions? I have to death, but never the decisions that lead to death. Will there ever be a decision that always will lead to everyone keeping their lives? Do they really have to die in order to protect?
When you try to do both of what is right and necessary for the future, will it ever prosper? Will it ever come out right the way you want?
When you wish to be neither a marionette nor a master, what path is left? Is it a path that goes beyond honor or pride? Will you just die quietly or go out in a way that everyone will see? Or will it even matter? For the last one…, No I guess it never will…

[Furore]

The simple answer is there is no right and wrong answers. Ultimately some possibilities are more right or wrong than others and you have to make the best judgement you possibly can.

And even if you do do what seems best or worse, the small rippling effects could end up saving/killing several other people. At least if the Butterfly Effect theory is to be believed. I believe it's true enough...

The butterfly effect is a phrase which encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Just do what you feel is the best thing to do in a given situation. I doubt that many if any people can accurately predict ALL consequences both positive and negative of their actions. You win some, you lose some.

[Draken Benvolaid]

When you lose or predict to lose more then intended...
Sigh... I guess it's really a question of how much you intend to risk. Sometimes you only have the option to risk everything for nothing...

That's why I don't like making such harsh decision, even though I sometimes have to.
I wish...... I wish the world had more clear cut answers to the paths you can take. If you could always do what is right and what is needed always with the same decision........ Yeah... If only... Right Celt?

I thought about that theory several times.
And like you said, the only problem is following the paths through the dense fog of life.

I think the best way is to reflect on the past, trying not to make the same mistakes of yourself and others. Not just the surface mistakes, the ideological mistakes of the past too.

Yet, it still doesn't give enough assurance for my liking of the future. I guess every little bit helps though...




I see three paths that I can take.

A continuation of current society with the world staying how it is for a long time...

Or a massive change in society, reformatting everything, even basic human thought pattern... an openness of all minds at once.... it's for the greater good beyond simple thinking, but it's still risks too much if it fails and succeeds...

Or let the world act on its own, without my interference, taking which ever path it takes.


I just don't know...

[Furore]

As I see it, just do your little bit. If enough people do what they feel is right, the world will change. Even if it's just slightly. Even making the world a slight bit better for a few people is better than avoiding doing anything or even being one of the guys who adds to the problem.

Don't expect the world to change dramatically overnight, or even over a decade or two. It won't. But small changes for the better are better than none at all.

[Draken Benvolaid]

As I see it, just do your little bit. If enough people do what they feel is right, the world will change. Even if it's just slightly. Even making the world a slight bit better for a few people is better than avoiding doing anything or even being one of the guys who adds to the problem.

Don't expect the world to change dramatically overnight, or even over a decade or two. It won't. But small changes for the better are better than none at all.

Those problems may be solutions, yet those solutions may be further problems continuing on to infinity. It's not the thought of not knowing what is right or wrong that concerns me, it's the actual doing part of it.

At the same time, trying to come to solutions is the problem. A vice versa effect. It never is right sometimes, just wrong.

Making little changes is also wrong sometimes. There's more you can do, yet you don't. Not doing enough or too much...

The changes also can create a Domino Effect on larger situations, you can have terrible side effects breaking more then you normally see. It changes drastically by the minute sometimes too, each action you take.


So many thoughts plagues me sometimes...




I remember something said to me. I don't remember who, but it was very good advice for a worn mind:

"Never look at the problem for the solution. Look past it to the solution or where the solution can be found."
-Unknown

Just..., which solution should I take...

[Furore]

This'll be my last post here man, but seriously, just don't over think things.
Whatever you do, shit WILL happen. But good things will too. You can be the evilest bastard in all the world, and some good will result from your actions. But the same goes for the most well intentioned of people.

Your best is all you can give. You give a damn, and that's the main thing. You'll most likely do more good than bad, so don't sweat it.

[Seiffy08]

This question will always be asked and in my honest opinion never have a clear answer. Like the story of a guy who found $140,000.00. He could've easy kept it, but turned it in and only got $2,000.00 back for it. It all comes down to you. Are you an ethical peron or not?

[Draken Benvolaid]

This question will always be asked and in my honest opinion never have a clear answer. Like the story of a guy who found $140,000.00. He could've easy kept it, but turned it in and only got $2,000.00 back for it. It all comes down to you. Are you an ethical peron or not?

Compared to most, absurdly so. My actions don't function as most do. I give more effort for the betterment of others then I do myself. Like throwing $20s into charity jars, not turning people in who wronged me unless they wrong those around me and other stuff like that. Took a board with a nail in it to the stomach so someone else wouldn't.

Maybe it's self-resent. Watching a child being kidnapped, watching people die. Being unable to help... or didn't try hard enough...

It doesn't matter, they won't come back... the kid is probably dead by now..




Which is correct when it comes down to what is right or needed?

[Furore]

I know I said I wasn't gonna post here again, but seriously dude...
It's way too hard to be sure something was the right choice/path/whatever.
Every action triggers a lot of future events which in turn trigger even more.
And say you are into helping people. Now if you were to take the board with nail a few too many times and ended up carking it, would you still be able to help others even in smaller ways?

Sometimes the 'right thing' may actually be the 'wrong thing', and you just don't realise because you're in the heat of things.

[Pete]

If you would tell us your situation, it would make a lot more sense. To be honest, it's hard to know exactly what you're talking about. I could assume you're in the military and in charge of a platoon. I could assume you're just talking about FFTactics, or you're just in some other pickle. And I mean no disrespect; it's just that you're asking all these hypothetical questions, and then make it sound like whatever answer sounds best is what you'll apply to your own situation. The best way to get help on whatever the problem is, is to be direct and honest about it.

The main thing to realize is that what is right, what is easy and what is needed are all different animals. Rarely is the right thing the thing that is best for you. However, the thing in any situation is to do what is best for you and your family first, and then your friends.

The "right" thing in a situation may be calling the police. However, that doesn't always solve things unless something had already happened. Doing the "right" thing may not always be the street smart thing, as you could get branded as a rat and be forced to deal with that.

The "needed" thing may not be the right thing, as the needed thing, in most cases is a turn to violence, or at least vigilante justice. It can often yield legal repercussions... and even possible future violence.

It really is dependent on the situation at hand, and so without actually knowing your situation, it's impossible to tell you what my answer for your situation would be.

[Che]

If this world was made of only right and wrong it would be boring. There would be nothing to think about. You can't go about your life in the belief that everything is going to be right or wrong. What is "right" and what is "wrong", anyway? Wrong according to morals? Wrong according to laws? Laws are things made by the government hundreds of years ago, morals are made by your society, both of which completely change if you change where you are in the world.

It's not that simple, and never will be. (Even though most would like it to be in the toughest of times)

[Pete]

Brett (kilo) brings up a good point as well. The world is much more complicated (and thankfully so) than simply black and white answers to everything. Being given a whole area with thousands of different shades of gray gives life the complication it needs to be interesting. Granted, when you're trying to choose that perfect solution, it sucks, but ultimately you are the one who is going to have to live with it and deal with whatever consequences that occur. It's a part of life, no matter how you look at it.

There are two major things to remember though:
1. You can't please everyone; so don't even try it.

When I was breaking up with my ex for the first time, I tried to be really nice about it, telling her I still wanted to be her friend and that I still really cared for her and all this crap, but that I didn't want to be with her. Essentially, I was trying to make it easy for both parties. I thought I was letting her down easy, and at the same time keeping it relatively guilt and pain free for myself. Well, neither worked out well. I was on the phone for hours at a time dealing with everything from screaming to crying to promises. It could have easily ruined my summer had she not lived 200 miles away.

Foolishly we got back together for about a month, and then everything went to shit because I really wasn't in it. I was upfront with her at this point, and while it wasn't easy for her, it ultimately turned out a lot better for me in the end. So, even in trying to do the "right" thing, by being a good guy and letting her down easy, I was actually playing with her emotions, which led to me hearing shit on the phone. Moral of the story: do what suits YOU best. If your goal is X, then tell people that X is your goal.

2. Making a decision might suck, and people might get mad, but after all is said and done, those people who are your true friends will understand and will accept it and forgive. Those who don't can piss off.

I'd say the exception to this rule is during something menial, like a pickup sports game, and you know your best friend sucks, and you don't take him before last pick. That's just messed up.

Other than that, your true friends are people who should understand you well enough to know generally how you think and what's going on in their life. I've bailed on major plans with friends before because I've had to take care of family matters around my house. Granted they were not happy at all, because I promised and promised and did extra stuff to make sure my week would be free, but something came up and I wasn't going to leave my parents in a lurch, even though they could've probably handled it themselves. When I first told my friends, they were rightfully pissed, but I gave them the week or so to cool down and visited them as soon as they got back. They weren't mad at all; in fact, they were more concerned that everything was ok by me. Thankfully it was. Case in point, your real friends will understand a decision that you make can potentially hurt them, but as long as it's not done maliciously, and if they are your real friends, then I think they would understand where you're coming from, especially if you let them know what's going on in your life.

[Zargabaath]

It is simple, do what is right. By going the way of what is "needed" it means choosing something that is wrong and this leads to people who do that to say they are gray and the world is many shades of grey. This is simply wrong. There can not be gray without black and white.

"Before one can identify anything as "gray", one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a person has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, they have no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil." (Rand 87)

What rights are there: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing else. Not the: guarantee of a job, health insurance, housing, food to name a few that tons of people in the world think that are.

Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York, New York: New American Library,1961-1964.

[Furore]

"Before one can identify anything as "gray", one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a person has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, they have no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil." (Rand 87)

What rights are there: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing else. Not the: guarantee of a job, health insurance, housing, food to name a few that tons of people in the world think that are.

Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York, New York: New American Library,1961-1964.

One man's good is another man's evil. If you can't see that, perhaps you are selfish in thought.

And lol, Ayn Rand. Objectivism 'the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.'

It suddenly makes a good deal more sense why you speak as you do as I do recall some of her works being all 'reason is the only absolute'-ey. But you know, she's no damn Dali Llama. What I do find interesting is that if you do follow her example, she was an individualist who was actually against the government prohibiting homosexuals and in that other thread you seemed to be somewhat against them. I find that quite interesting. Not that that matters really.

I think the greatest right is man's right to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of consequences.

[Zargabaath]

I think the greatest right is man's right to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of consequences.

Silver you just lost with that.

The greatest right is man's right to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of consequence?

Man does not have the right to do anything he pleases. To use force against another human is the most dispacable crime but apparently you do not care about genocide, rape, murder, torture, slavery, etc.

Every human has the right to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness; these are inalienable rights which means they can not be infringed by any institution, group, government, or individual for any cause.

So what is good is actually easy to decipher but apparently you don't want to be seen as evil so your perpetuate the moral grayness spreading for you don't want to be held accountable.

Dali Llama is a mystic who leads a bunch of people away from people; you're right she is not like him.

While those who criticize Objectivism to be a cult, this biggest joke in the world, Objectivists today have changed their view on homosexuality saying their is no evidence of what Rand said on homosexuality "an error in the brain".

I do not have a problem with gays having getting the legal benefits of marriage or with health insurance however they have acquired more rights which are wrong and need to be taken back.

Another man's good is another man's evil; Cause genocide is the whitest white. lol. you are troubled and I feel sad that you believe that.

[Victoria]

Silver you just lost with that.

Man does not have the right to do anything he pleases.

Actually yes, Man does. All of the laws in existence are man-made to attempt to bring some "order/right" in the world. Without those, man can indeed do whatever they want.

Now stop necroposting in month old threads that have already ceased discussion.

[Furore]

Silver you just lost with that.

Did I? Because that's the only right that cannot be taken away. You could chain me up and I could still choose to spit in your face. And I love that.

Man does not have the right to do anything he pleases. To use force against another human is the most dispacable crime but apparently you do not care about genocide, rape, murder, torture, slavery, etc.

Actually man can and does. It's just sometimes he shouldn't. If I'm holding a loaded shotgun to your head, there's no mystical force that's gonna stop me from going bang. It's just a matter of whether or not I'd want to.

Every human has the right to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness; these are inalienable rights which means they can not be infringed by any institution, group, government, or individual for any cause.

These can be and are infringed upon regularly. Some rights they are. But yeah, some people pursue happiness in a gay relationship. What's your point?

So what is good is actually easy to decipher but apparently you don't want to be seen as evil so your perpetuate the moral grayness spreading for you don't want to be held accountable.

No, good and evil are subjective terms and on top of that are often relative as well. Some things are better or worse to one than they are another. That's part of why people think so differently. =D

Dali Llama is a mystic who leads a bunch of people away from people; you're right she is not like him.

My basic point was that I think the Dali Llama is cool. Ayn Rand seems a bit like a square although I do agree with a few things she has brought to the table.

While those who criticize Objectivism to be a cult, this biggest joke in the world, Objectivists today have changed their view on homosexuality saying their is no evidence of what Rand said on homosexuality "an error in the brain".

A cult? I never said that. But I do recall that although Ayn Rand personally felt homosexuality was disgusting she felt that the government had no right to impose inhibitions on homosexuals. That was pretty cool of her.

I do not have a problem with gays having getting the legal benefits of marriage or with health insurance however they have acquired more rights which are wrong and need to be taken back.

Oh really? Which rights are those?

Another man's good is another man's evil; Cause genocide is the whitest white. lol. you are troubled and I feel sad that you believe that.

Only someone who felt actions were only either white or black could see genocide as the whitest white.

[Zargabaath]

There won't be mystical force but you would be punished if you did. Just because you can does not make it a right.

By saying man can do anything he wants you are saying that nothing is evil.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. The concept of right pertains only to action - the freedom of action; freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men.

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent - his right has been violated.

Therefore, a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division- not subject to differences in opinion, nor to majority decions, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.

I did not accuse you of calling it a cult, I put that in there to show that Objectivists today don't follow her blindly as a cult would.

That was one of the greatest things of Rand and Objectivism, total freedom to be whoever you wanted as long as you did not violate the rights of others. She hated porn but defended it. She stayed true to ideals of freedom.

There is no such thing as a right to a job, there is the right to pursue a job but there is no guarantee to one. Hiring descrimination is perfectly the right of business owner; if they don't want to hire a certain group of people: athiests, gays, christians, whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. it is their right to do so. Of course white (white males), christians are not allowed to use this.

A recent example of white people who earned their promotion yet were held up by the city because no blacks passed was heard in the Supreme Court today. Firefighters from New Haven (?) took a test for possible promotions only whites passed the test but the city fearing a discrimination lawsuit decided not to promote/give raise to anyone. That is racism, of course people who believe in affirmitive action and hiring minorities over a white individual (the individual being the smallest minority) are racist, sexist, etc themselves for their decision was not based on their qualities, hard work, but on a feature of theirs.

Morality is white and black, gray is a cop out for those who choose to be black but not wholly so they don't seem as bad. Genocide being the whitest white was more of a joke rather than a personal belief just to clarify even if not needed.

[Furore]

There won't be mystical force but you would be punished if you did. Just because you can does not make it a right.

Dude seriously. You brought morals into this. Morals as in those things that can differ from person to person. Morals are a bloody ethical motive, that is motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. Different people have different views on right and wrong. Granted many people in one society can share a similar set of such views due to the effects of growing up in whichever society, but even two people who think nearly the same will likely have some differences in opinion of right and wrong. I don't think that that part is too hard to follow.

By saying man can do anything he wants you are saying that nothing is evil.

Is anything evil? Of course it is. To me some things are evil, to you some things are evil. The real thing to note is that we just like most others wouldn't have the same opinion on such and such being evil. Granted a few things like murder and theft may be seen as evil by near everyone, but even in those cases you may get some who would disagree because they do not share the same moral beliefs.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. The concept of right pertains only to action - the freedom of action; freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men.

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent - his right has been violated.

There are ways of coercing people that don't involve getting physical. And rights as a term have more meanings than simply legal rights. But going into legal rights, my favourite right is still very doable. It just means I might have to atone for my actions however neccesary, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But yeah, bring force into it and your unviolatable rights deflate like a cheap helium balloon after a fortnight. Thanks for mentioning that little bit for me.

Therefore, a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division- not subject to differences in opinion, nor to majority decions, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.

Not even when his country calls him to? I thought sometimes people did have the right to bear arms against another depending on the society. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I do know I can use reasonable force against another in my work if conditions are met. Legally too.

I did not accuse you of calling it a cult, I put that in there to show that Objectivists today don't follow her blindly as a cult would.

Oh, I really didn't know that. Thanks for clearing it up.

That was one of the greatest things of Rand and Objectivism, total freedom to be whoever you wanted as long as you did not violate the rights of others. She hated porn but defended it. She stayed true to ideals of freedom.

Too bad there ain't many objectivist societies then, aye? Guess it don't matter.

There is no such thing as a right to a job, there is the right to pursue a job but there is no guarantee to one. Hiring descrimination is perfectly the right of business owner; if they don't want to hire a certain group of people: athiests, gays, christians, whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. it is their right to do so. Of course white (white males), christians are not allowed to use this.

Well in some countries there are laws against discrimination. In these cases people have a very real right not to be discriminated against, but even so it still happens quite often. Too bad that.

Morality is white and black, gray is a cop out for those who choose to be black but not wholly so they don't seem as bad. Genocide being the whitest white was more of a joke rather than a personal belief just to clarify even if not needed.

Morality is only black and white to those who cannot comprehend the deeper layers. Sometimes one's 'good' or 'evil' actions have several motivators and even more importantly several consequences which can be both good or otherwise. Also, your jokes aren't funny.