Presidents Club Dinner: Why Good Deeds Never Justify Bad Actions
Anh Quan Nguyen, 27 Jan 18
       

via shutterstock.com

Imagine that on route to work, you notice a child falling into a pond and drowning. Of course, you jump into the pond, pull out the child and save a life. Afterwards, you feel quite good about yourself.

Later that day, you go to a cafe, and while chatting with the waitress about what cake she’d recommend, you mention your heroic deed. Are you now justified to grope her or to expose your genitals?

This may sound absurd. However, assuming that their donations to children’s charitiesactually saved lives, that was the question some of the attendees of the Presidents Club Charity Dinner faced. Thanks to undercover reporting from the FT, it’s emerged that some of them decided to sexually harass the hostesses..

How could anyone think that this horrifying behaviour is justified just because they did something good before – such as give money to charity? To explain the thinking behind the incident, it’s helpful to look at the Presidents Club through the lens of moral philosophy. It offers lessons on how not to behave like this.

Utilitarianism

Let’s pretend that we are participants of that fundraiser, trying to find a moral justification for our decision to do badly. In our search, we could turn to our good deeds. We saved lives by bidding at the charity auction, so wouldn’t the good we did outweigh the bad?

The theory classically associated with this thinking is utilitarianism, which asks you to act to promote the most happiness for the greatest number of people. Sometimes, this requires you to do something bad to bring about the greatest good. For example, you may need to lie to a racist mob about the location of your black neighbours to save their lives.

But this wouldn’t apply for the charity gala. In the case of the racist mob, lying is necessary to save your neighbours. Without the bad act, you wouldn’t be able to do the good deed. But whether you grope the waitress or not is absolutely independent from you saving a life. Both actions could happen without the other – you don’t need to grope anyone to donate.

So, utilitarianism doesn’t provide us with a justification, but rather teaches us our first lesson: do not group actions together that can be evaluated independently.

Sign in to view full article

       
These Three Firms Own Corporate America
A fundamental change is underway in stock market investing, and the spin-off effects are poised to dramatically impact corporate America.
Jan Fichtner, Eelke Heemskerk, Javier Garcia
Tue, 16 May 17
How Hot-Deskers are Made to Feel Like the Homeless People of the Office World
If you work in an open-plan, hot-desking environment, you have probably at some point found yourself trudging through the office, ...
Alison Hirst
Thu, 16 Feb 17
Your Next Social Network Could Pay You For Posting
You may well have found this article through Facebook. An algorithm programmed by one of the world’s biggest companies now ...
Jelena Dzakula
Wed, 1 Feb 17
Why Multilingualism is Good For Economic Growth
If your strategy is to trade only with people that speak English that’s going to be a poor strategy.
Gabrielle Hogan-Brun
Mon, 6 Feb 17
You Too Could Be Multilingual – It’s Just About Unlocking The Skills Inside
Think back to when you first started learning a foreign language. For many readers it was probably French, German or ...
Christopher Timothy McGuirk
Thu, 6 Apr 17
AcuSLIM - Acupuncture Weight Loss Programme
Join us today!
Advertise with Us
Read about Forced Organ Harvesting
Sports Elements
Sports Elements