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

       
Karl Marx, the Racist
It’s been nearly 100 years since Karl Marx’s ideas triggered the world’s first communist revolution in Russia on March 8, ...
Jack Phillips
Sat, 11 Feb 17
Why are We More Likely to Get Cancer as We Age?
This article is part of our series on older people’s health. It looks at the changes and processes that occur ...
Stuart Pitson
Wed, 1 Feb 17
We Change Our Voice When We Talk to High-Status People, Shows New Study
Imagine going for a job interview and the employer sitting across from you is truly intimidating. He’s big, bold, loud ...
Viktoria Mileva, Juan David Leongómez
Wed, 5 Jul 17
Why Women Make The Best Stock Traders
Female traders can be far more selective, as they spend more time evaluating before making a trade and have a ...
Peter Swan
Thu, 9 Mar 17
Enough’s Enough: Buying More Stuff Isn’t Always the Answer to Happiness
The average German household contains 10,000 items. That’s according to a study cited by Frank Trentmann in his sweeping history ...
Anthony James
Thu, 5 Jan 17
Join us today!
An Epoch Times Survey
At Epoch Times, We Care :o)
BUCHERER
Sports Elements
Sports Elements