Is it ever wrong to do the right thing for the wrong reasons? (v1)

Yes, even if the result is good, it matters.

According to Immanuel Kant, intent is what makes an action moral. The ethical value of an act is judged by the reason why it was done rather than the actual value of the act.

We must also define what “right thing” and “wrong reasons” mean.

Doing the “right thing” could be defined as something that doesn’t anger or sadden the people around you; it could also be defined as something that follows the law.

“Wrong reasons” could be defined as a selfish or wrong motive to complete an action.

While a Utilitarian framework would argue that their action is sacred (even with a valuable prize gained after it), and sacred is better than non-sacred, regardless of their selfish heart. Basically, they argue that what you do matters more than why you do it. As an example, a person tries to poison a village’s well, but the poison actually turns out to be a medicine that cures everyone.

Is the argument made by Utilitarians necessarily wrong?

The argument “sacred is better than non-sacred” makes sense and is not wrong, but doing a sacred action for a selfish reason or motive isn’t very ethically sound.

Another argument a Utilitarian would say is: “A starving child doesn’t care if the person giving them bread is a saint or a selfish billionaire. The bread tastes the same.”

This makes sense. This reliance on rewards is called Moral Fragility by philosophers. A society where people only do the right things for the wrong reasons. This is a very fragile, unstable society. This is a world built on wrong reasons, a world where good deeds stop coming in. A society without virtue is inefficient because, if everyone is good only when watched, you will need police watching every corner, which would be a wrong, unsafe world.

Does doing the right thing for a selfish reason damage the person doing it?

Aristotle argued that we become what we repeatedly do. If we do good things for bad reasons, we aren’t actually becoming “good” people. If someone only helps people to get famous, they are training their brain to see other people as tools rather than as human beings. Even if they help 1,000 people, they become more selfish in the process.

Earlier, we defined “right thing” as being defined by following the law, but this isn’t always true. Not all laws are sacred or good, so if a person follows a bad law in an attempt to be a good person and citizen, would that still be defined as the “right thing” or not? For example, if a person in 1940s Europe followed a law to report their neighbors, they were “following the law” but doing something evil. If this is not defined or labeled as the “right thing”, that means that not following the law would be the right thing. If they don’t follow the law, they will be punished, so they have to follow that law whether they like it or not. Why did people follow those laws? Some did it for “wrong reasons” (fear of punishment), but others did it because they thought the definition of being a good citizen meant following every law. So, what would this be defined as? We know it can’t be the “right thing”, so the only correct way to define it is the opposite. A healthy society needs people with virtue, not just people who follow rules because they are afraid of being caught.

Selfish reasons aren’t always wrong, though, a doctor who treats a patient perfectly because they are obsessed with having a 100% success rate (a selfish reason) will be more helpful to the patient than a doctor who truly cares but is so emotional and nervous about the patient that they make a mistake. In this situation, you would probably want the selfish doctor because of a better and more accurate result, but you would probably like to invite to a party than the selfish one. An emotional outlook is better in social areas, and a selfish outlook is better in a business and professional perspective. Why do we have different standards for different parts of our lives? In a Market Economy, “wrong reasons ” are, for example, a baker making good bread just to get your money; these are actually what make the world work, because it would benefit both sides: you get what you want, and they get what they want. Society uses a “Social Contract” which says that we don’t need to love each other to help each other, as long as our selfish interests align with the common good.

We’ve already talked about selfish versus sacred reasons. There is also a third type of reason: Accidental or Ignorant reasons. As an example,  someone saves a rare bird, simply because they mistook it for a common bird they wanted to eat, but they missed. So, what is the difference between malice, selfishness, and accident? Malice would be doing wrong on purpose, which is the same as selfishness from an outside perspective (because it somewhat also resembles doing wrong intentionally), but could also be right for yourself. If you intended to do wrong and failed, that is a failed non-sacred act.

While a baker’s selfishness feeds the village and a doctor’s obsession saves the patient, a world where we only do right for wrong reasons, or when watched, is a world built on fragile grains of sand. It lacks the moral resolve and the habit of excellence. Ultimately, it is wrong because it trades our long-term character for short-term gain.

Bibliography:

Will Durant, 1926, The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World’s Greatest Philosophers – ”We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.”

Immanuel Kant, 1785, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals- “Virtue is strength born not of desire, but of moral resolve.”

John Stuart Mill, 1873, John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography- “Those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.”