-2

Many people, including myself, shed a tear yesterday (and now again!) after the news came through that a here famous crime reporter died. Peter R. de Vries was (is!) a beloved man who helped people genuinely. He tried to reopen cold cases and helped people wrongly convicted. Two innocent men would still be in jail if he weren't there. There is a sea of flowers on the place were he got shot. He was a nice man not afraid for the confrontation and said in my eyes wise things. About politics, about peiple, in general. He had a natural sense of humor.

Still I can't stop wondering. The murder was bad. But seen from the killer's perspective, or the one(s) ordering it, was it a good deed? Peter was known to be disliked in criminal circles. Maybe prison no longer awaits for them (although the actual killer got caught soon after, the same day he got shot last week).

  • "seen from the killer's perspective"... Maybe we have to make a difference between good and useful (for someone). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 16 '21 at 07:49
  • Criminals know the difference between good and bad (most of the times at least) they just don't care. It's al about that is profitable tot hem. – A.bakker Jul 16 '21 at 08:06
  • 2
    Sure, why not. Genocide is good too, from Nazi perspective. – Conifold Jul 16 '21 at 08:09
  • 1
    Without knowing the particular criminal's psychology, how can we answer? And if we could answer, how could we safely infer from the particular to the general psychology of criminals, even that of the sub-class of asssassins? – Geoffrey Thomas Jul 16 '21 at 08:11
  • @GeoffreyThomas If a criminal doesnt get convicted because of the murder then for him the murder is good. Though he can feel bad about it of courseü –  Jul 16 '21 at 08:15
  • Besides the difference between good (universal ethical standards) and useful (optimizing individual utility), there also is the question to what extent the criminal's viewpoint should matter. After all, that individual (the one responsible at least) has deliberately decided to violate universal standards in a severe way to further individual interests. – collapsar Jul 16 '21 at 08:18
  • @Vielloosoof It is hard to support a general claim that the deed would be good from the killer's perspective as the murder limits his future options in seome ways (living a 'good' life in a universal sense gets harder) and it cannot be known how much of a burden his action will become to himself ( eg. his conscience may trouble him massively, if not immediately then later on in life, or he might be subject to extortion by someone who has knowledge of the crime who forces him into actions that are subjectively bad for the killer ). – collapsar Jul 16 '21 at 08:24
  • It doesn't matter to you what the criminal thinks. The important thing is whether you think it's good. Just because some criminal may think differently, does not mean you should change your own opinion. – causative Jul 16 '21 at 08:25
  • @causative - neither this is reasonable... Your point of view is as "good" as that of the criminal. The issue is about an "universal" good or - at least - a "shared" one. Without it, no society is possible. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 16 '21 at 13:13
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA I will accept propositions supported by arguments that persuade me. What does it matter, to persuading me, if a moral claim is "shared" among many? If I am persuaded simply because others accept the claim, I am committing the bandwagon fallacy. And what does it matter, to persuading me, if a moral claim is "objective"? If you can't rationally persuade me of the claim, I would be irrational to accept it, even if it's objective. Also, society is possible without shared moral values; no moral value is shared by everyone in society, but society persists. – causative Jul 16 '21 at 15:43
  • You might like this answer, which frames moral theories in terms of intersubjectivity and game-theory, to say moral behaviour is aimed at mutual cooperation balanced with personal benefit, not simply personal benefit: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84498/is-the-categorical-imperative-simply-bad-math/84523#84523 If the rule can't be universalised by principles like The Golden Rule it is not the moral choice because it undermines the ability to have positive collective engagement which morality aims at. – CriglCragl Aug 16 '21 at 16:46

2 Answers2

0

If somebody decides to do something then it is because they are motivated to do so, and the motivation, which could be anything - hunger, curiosity, greed, boredom - outweighs the motivation for not carrying out that action. Whether the subject would consider that to equate to ‘good’ is another matter; I suggest that ‘less bad’ might in many cases be a better description, in which case the answer to your question is no.

Frog
  • 655
  • 3
  • 6
  • I'd say there is a confusion introduced by using good and bad in moral terms as moral theory, when moral theory needs to be defined first to know what good and bad is in that context: 'Ethics: a simple definition using simple words' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/83088/ethics-a-simple-definition-using-simple-words/83104#83104 – CriglCragl Aug 16 '21 at 16:48
0

Don't say "it is good, from his perspective." It makes it sound like the goodness or badness of the act depends on who you're asking. Murder is wrong, and if a murderer thinks murder is right, the murderer is wrong. We all have different subjective opinions, but they are not all equally right.

If Dave believes the Earth is flat, you should not say, "from Dave's perspective, the Earth is flat" (or even worse, "For Dave, the Earth is flat"); you should say, "Dave believes the Earth is flat."

In regard to morality, you should not assert a moral proposition unless you believe it yourself. If you don't believe the murder is actually good - then to say it is good (even "from a certain perspective") would be dishonest.

causative
  • 12,714
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50