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

       
What If Several of the World’s Biggest Food Crops Failed at the Same Time?
Less than one-quarter of Earth’s total cropland produces nearly three-quarters of the staple crops that feed the world’s population – ...
Anthony Janetos
Thu, 8 Jun 17
The Dead End of Communism
Communism is estimated to have killed at least 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been compiled and its ...
Epoch Times
Sat, 11 Feb 17
The Future of Online Advertising is Big Data and Algorithms
The challenge facing advertisers and advertising professionals is remaining relevant in the face of a fundamental technological change. Namely, algorithms ...
Rob Livingstone
Tue, 4 Apr 17
Young Workers Expect Their Older Colleagues to Get Out of The Way
There are many names for the narratives pitting the older generation against the younger: Gen-Y versus Baby Boomers, “Generation Me” ...
Michael North
Wed, 15 Mar 17
Use Your Body, Not WiFi, to Transmit Secure Passwords
Sending a password or secret code over airborne radio waves like WiFi or Bluetooth means anyone can eavesdrop, including hackers.
Jennifer Langston
Fri, 6 Jan 17
An Epoch Times Survey
An Epoch Times Survey
An Epoch Times Survey
BUCHERER
Read about Forced Organ Harvesting
Sports Elements