Doing the Right Thing

Kintarō Hattori

I had a long post typed out but decided in the end that it was perhaps not best to go into details. Instead I'll keep it short but ask the question: 'Do you get grief when you do the right thing?'.

In life I always try to do the right thing and lately I think I've done something which has really benefitted a family member but by golly am I getting a lot of earache from those closest to me, despite the fact that it really was the right thing to do.

So, do you get harassed if/when you try to do the right thing?

jimmycrackcorm

Doesn't "the right thing" depend on what your opinion and viewpoint is?

Kintarō Hattori

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Doesn't "the right thing" depend on what your opinion and viewpoint is?

Does it? I thought the right thing was always obvious. It's not always something that may benefit you but someone else.

BBDBB

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Does it? I thought the right thing was always obvious. It's not always something that may benefit you but someone else.

sadly its not that simple, others may have a different view of what the right thing is, I include in that the recipient of the benefit who may also have a different view of what the right thing should have been

the important thing is, to do what you feel is the right thing so that you can look the detractors in the eye and say "I did what I felt was the right thing"

The Corinthian

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Does it? I thought the right thing was always obvious.

Is it? That's where expressions such as "the path to Hell is paved with good intentions" and "fools rush in, where angels fear to tread" come from.

BBDBB wrote: »

the important thing is, to do what you feel is the right thing so that you can look the detractors in the eye and say "I did what I felt was the right thing"

That approach regrettably breaks down the moment that it's a sociopath looking the detractors in the eye.

BBDBB

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is it? That's where expressions such as "the path to Hell is paved with good intentions" and "fools rush in, where angels fear to tread" come from.

That approach regrettably breaks down the moment that it's a sociopath looking the detractors in the eye.

true, but at least they can sleep at nights

The Corinthian

BBDBB wrote: »

true, but at least they can sleep at nights

I don't follow. Naturally sociopaths can sleep at night.

Kintarō Hattori

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

'Do you get grief when you do the right thing?'.

It depends. If the right thing is indisputably the right thing, and if it doesn't require any effort from anyone else, then you don't get grief.

If the right thing makes things uncomfortable or requires effort from others, then they usually prefer you do the easy thing.

Often people care less about rightness or wrongness than they do about fallout. It's human, but it often winds up in a shooting the messenger situation, and I'm guessing in this case that's you.

If the right thing is a no brainer, you won't regret it regardless of the grief.

The Corinthian

Candie wrote: »

It depends. If the right thing is indisputably the right thing, and if it doesn't require any effort from anyone else, then you don't get grief.

The whole point of the Humanities board is nothing is indisputably the right thing.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

The whole point of the Humanities board is nothing is indisputably the right thing.

We could be talking about microwaving kittens here.

Only the OP has all the information so I think we can apply a little licence. 'Tis more of a PI in ways.

The metrics used to determine right from wrong vary between one person and the next. If you hold the position that there exists an objective morality then you can at least distinguish between what's right and wrong and do so with some philosophical authority; if, on the other hand, you reject any claims to an objective morality, then the issue becomes increasingly complex. It's a broad question and one of the primary issues philosophical inquiry attempts to deal with.

Some reading if you're interested.

The Corinthian

Candie wrote: »

We could be talking about microwaving kittens here.

Who said there's anything wrong microwaving kittens? Roasted may bring the flavour out more, however.

Only the OP has all the information so I think we can apply a little licence. 'Tis more of a PI in ways.

If it's a PI, it's in the wrong forum, but if it's meant as a serious discussion in on the Humanities board, then we should treat it as that.

And from that perspective, the first thing to question is whether we're really talking about doing the right thing or what you personally believe is the right thing - also because, in our own arrogant certainty that we are doing the right thing, others may ultimately be giving us 'grief' because they think we did the wrong thing.

The Corinthian

gvn wrote: »

If you hold the position that there exists an objective morality then you can at least distinguish between what's right and wrong and do so with some philosophical authority; if, on the other hand, you reject any claims to an objective morality, then the issue becomes increasingly complex.

Exactly, the OP and numerous other posters spoke of 'the right thing' in an abstract manner, almost as if we should instinctively know what it is. Problem is that we don't - if we did, things like honour killings would not be moral in one part of the World and immoral in another.

So not only did we not get a definition, or even example, of what is right and wrong, but were expected to agree that objective right and wrong exist, with no proof or explanation whatsoever.

After which we were asked to tackle the question of why doing moral things causes us to receive grief from others - which is of course a complete and nonsensical generalization. It can cause us to receive grief from others, but it also can cause us to receive no grief whatsoever or even adulation from them.

Kintarō Hattori

Oooh this is some heavy discussion. Nothing is generally simple of course but isn't it sometimes the case though that sometimes are almost black and white- clear cut so to speak. So to something as undeniably the right thing to do is simple.

I believe what I've done is an obvious action. There is no real debate about whether or not it was the right thing to do. It was a gift. A gift that made someone's life easier. The grief is from a third party who believes it was too generous.

sopretty

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Oooh this is some heavy discussion. Nothing is generally simple of course but isn't it sometimes the case though that sometimes are almost black and white- clear cut so to speak. So to something as undeniably the right thing to do is simple.

I believe what I've done is an obvious action. There is no real debate about whether or not it was the right thing to do. It was a gift. A gift that made someone's life easier. The grief is from a third party who believes it was too generous.

Why does the third party feel it was too generous?

The Corinthian

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Oooh this is some heavy discussion. Nothing is generally simple of course but isn't it sometimes the case though that sometimes are almost black and white- clear cut so to speak. So to something as undeniably the right thing to do is simple.

In your opinion, that you are asking us to accept without explanation or proof.

I believe what I've done is an obvious action. There is no real debate about whether or not it was the right thing to do. It was a gift. A gift that made someone's life easier. The grief is from a third party who believes it was too generous.

Gifts, even if they may make someone's life 'easier' in the short term can actually be very harmful in the long.

To cite an example, consider Malcolm Edward MacArthur, the man at the centre of the GUBU scandal. He received a 'gift' in the shape of an inheritance in 1974, which he then lived off until it ran out in 1982. By that stage he had never held a job in his life. He was in essence unemployable and so decided that robbing a bank was his best course of action - he never got that far, instead murdering two people while attempting to get a getaway car and gun for his planned robbery.

Had he never received this inheritance and instead was forced to go out and seek employment at age 29 instead of 37, there is every possibility that things would have turned out differently for him. The same for many people who have discovered that 'gifts' and other windfalls ended up causing far more harm than good in the long run.

In short, as I said in my first response to you, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So there's plenty of debate to be had on the merits of your gift - it's just that you clearly don't want to have it.

KyussBishop

I'm a bit confused as to what course the discussion is aimed at, but a good example of doing the right thing, even though there are personal consequences, would be whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden - in the former, looking at spending a significant portion of his life in prison, in the latter, looking at potentially never being able to return to his home country again, and being ever fearful of capture and prosecution - both to provide the public (worldwide) with important knowledge about their own government.

We have unsung whistleblowers of our own too in Ireland, like Jonathan Sugarman, who resigned from his job and attempted to blow the whistle on a (likely fraudulent) breach of regulations at the financial institution he was working for - only for the regulators/central bank to (implicitly) threaten him with being referred to the Gardai, if he exposed any wrongdoing - he deserves far far more recognition and attention, than he is given, and is one of the very few people to have lifted the lid on likely financial fraud.

Kintarō Hattori

sopretty wrote: »

Why does the third party feel it was too generous?

Well look to shed some light on things. We recently upgraded our car. I don't drive but my missus does. As a result of the upgrade the runabout was no longer needed. As I'm currently taking lessons we thought about holding onto it for me to use when I pass the test. I thought however that it would be really helpful to give it to my sister who's a single mother with two kids and whom was quite dependent on taxis and the kindness of friends.

As a car could be quite a burden financially I spoke to family and we agreed I'd pay tax and any general costs needed while they'd cover insurance- so all the sister has to do is put petrol in it.

She could really benefit from it more than I could. When the time is right I'll buy something else more suitable for my needs. My partner has no family in Ireland so it's not as if someone here lost out by giving it to someone in my family.

So, I feel that I most definitely did the right thing. It's given a lot of freedom and mobility to someone who has benefited from it. It hasn't cost me an awful lot to do that but by golly have I been getting it in the ear- that it's far too generous, not deserved etc. Sadly it has been making me think if always trying to do the right thing by someone is worth it.

clairefontaine

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Well look to shed some light on things. We recently upgraded our car. I don't drive but my missus does. As a result of the upgrade the runabout was no longer needed. As I'm currently taking lessons we thought about holding onto it for me to use when I pass the test. I thought however that it would be really helpful to give it to my sister who's a single mother with two kids and whom was quite dependent on taxis and the kindness of friends.

As a car could be quite a burden financially I spoke to family and we agreed I'd pay tax and any general costs needed while they'd cover insurance- so all the sister has to do is put petrol in it.

She could really benefit from it more than I could. When the time is right I'll buy something else more suitable for my needs. My partner has no family in Ireland so it's not as if someone here lost out by giving it to someone in my family.

So, I feel that I most definitely did the right thing. It's given a lot of freedom and mobility to someone who has benefited from it. It hasn't cost me an awful lot to do that but by golly have I been getting it in the ear- that it's far too generous, not deserved etc. Sadly it has been making me think if always trying to do the right thing by someone is worth it.

There is already a thread on here somewhere about Irish begrudgery. Have a look.

BBDBB

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Well look to shed some light on things. We recently upgraded our car. I don't drive but my missus does. As a result of the upgrade the runabout was no longer needed. As I'm currently taking lessons we thought about holding onto it for me to use when I pass the test. I thought however that it would be really helpful to give it to my sister who's a single mother with two kids and whom was quite dependent on taxis and the kindness of friends.

As a car could be quite a burden financially I spoke to family and we agreed I'd pay tax and any general costs needed while they'd cover insurance- so all the sister has to do is put petrol in it.

She could really benefit from it more than I could. When the time is right I'll buy something else more suitable for my needs. My partner has no family in Ireland so it's not as if someone here lost out by giving it to someone in my family.

So, I feel that I most definitely did the right thing. It's given a lot of freedom and mobility to someone who has benefited from it. It hasn't cost me an awful lot to do that but by golly have I been getting it in the ear- that it's far too generous, not deserved etc. Sadly it has been making me think if always trying to do the right thing by someone is worth it.

so as I said, you made a decision for what you believe to be the right reasons, when those who disagree with you are in a similar position then they can decide what they want to do, as it is, you can sleep soundly knowing you did the right thing and your conscience clear

Peregrinus

If he beleives that it was "too generous", he clearly does not think that it was the right thing. Consequently he will not share your belef that what you have done is obviously, indisputably, undebateably right. (He might - I don't know - accept that it was well-intentioned.)

Why should we prefer your belief about the rightness of this thingto his, when we don't know the foundation for either belief?

Going back to the question you raise in your OP, isn't it the case that you are much more likely to get grief for doing [what you regard as] the right thing in cases where not everyone around you agrees that it is the right thing?

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to what course the discussion is aimed at, but a good example of doing the right thing, even though there are personal consequences, would be whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden - in the former, looking at spending a significant portion of his life in prison, in the latter, looking at potentially never being able to return to his home country again, and being ever fearful of capture and prosecution - both to provide the public (worldwide) with important knowledge about their own government.

There's actually plenty of people who have argued that neither Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden did the right thing. Whistleblowing is an interesting example, because there the 'right' thing can result in a seriously 'wrong' thing.

For example, what if someone had blown the whistle on the Coventry Blitz, that had been uncovered because British intelligence had cracked the Enigma code? Thousands of lives would have been saved, yet it would have alerted the Germans that their messages were compromised and this in turn could have prolonged the war, resulting the the loss of tens of thousands of lives. In the end the British government chose to remain silent.

Of course, in the case of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, they were the ones to calculate the consequences of their actions and choose for everyone else. But did they really have the right to do so? Was Bradley Manning, someone who clearly had mental health problems, in any position to make such a decision? And was Snowden justified when he blew the whistle on NSA espionage of allied European governments and firms? As a European, I'd be tempted to say yes as it means less espionage on European governments and businesses by a foreign power. But were I American, I might not be so supportive.

I'm not arguing either way to the above, only to say that there is rarely if ever a right thing and whenever we claim that something is clearly moral or the 'right thing' to do, it's only because we believe it to be so and have no compunction in imposing our standards of morality on others.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So, I feel that I most definitely did the right thing.

It was clear from your first post that you feel you did the right thing, but do you reason you did the right thing? One thing I'd note is that even now, that you've gone so far as to explain what it was that you did, you've only given one side of the story and have failed to explain what the objection to this 'right thing' was.

Essentially, you're still coming into this discussion presuming that we should be accepting your definition of right and wrong.

Kintarō Hattori

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was clear from your first post that you feel you did the right thing, but do you reason you did the right thing? One thing I'd note is that even now, that you've gone so far as to explain what it was that you did, you've only given one side of the story and have failed to explain what the objection to this 'right thing' was.

Essentially, you're still coming into this discussion presuming that we should be accepting your definition of right and wrong.

Ah what a quandary I've landed myself in. I totally get what you're saying in regards to how things are perceived but in my defence I had thought this was a pretty clear cut case. We could have sold the car and pocketed the money. Instead it was given to someone who realistically needed it. They don't have to put any finance into it other than petrol- everything else is taken care of.

I'm happy with that, I feel it was right to help out someone who now has greater mobility rather than giving myself some short term financial gain. The reason I questioned it is because of the negative feedback from my partner who believes the recipient may not be all that deserving of it and who believes that it was simply too generous.

The Corinthian

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Ah what a quandary I've landed myself in.

Maybe you should have posted in After Hours

The reason I questioned it is because of the negative feedback from my partner who believes the recipient may not be all that deserving of it and who believes that it was simply too generous.

Your partner may be right. I've known people who adopt what are essentially parasitic lifestyles, living off the generosity of others, and all that generosity does is encourage them not to take responsibility for themselves. My guess is that this is also neither the first or last time you'll show such generosity towards your sister. In the long run such generosity could do immeasurable damage.

Of course, that's just a stab in the dark, because you don't really give anything away on why what you did may not have been the right thing. Indeed, what is more important to you? That you did the right thing or you feel you did the right thing - because from where I'm standing, it looks a lot like the latter.

Kintarō Hattori

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you should have posted in After Hours

I don't agree, can you imagine the crazy non reasoned responses the post would have elicited there. I do feel I posted in the correct forum, but not having visited before the depth of discussion has been a little eye opening.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your partner may be right. I've known people who adopt what are essentially parasitic lifestyles, living off the generosity of others, and all that generosity does is encourage them not to take responsibility for themselves. My guess is that this is also neither the first or last time you'll show such generosity towards your sister. In the long run such generosity could do immeasurable damage.

Of course, that's just a stab in the dark, because you don't really give anything away on why what you did may not have been the right thing. Indeed, what is more important to you? That you did the right thing or you feel you did the right thing - because from where I'm standing, it looks a lot like the latter.

You know, your first paragraph is a very fair point and something which upon reflection I didn't consider. Maybe you're correct, that line of thought never entered into the equation when I considered my actions.

I think I've been fairly clear on my actions. At the time I didn't think I may not have done the right thing. I felt I had. I didn't give her the car to feel good about myself. On reflection perhaps I've been blindly naive and wanted to help someone out. There was nothing noble or self centered about it. I had something I was finished with that in the long term I believed was going to be more beneficial by being passed onto someone else rather than lining my pocket.

It really was a simple as that. Where anything negative has creeped into the equation is with the moaning from my partner. I had thought that it was a wholly positive thing to do and no-one could see anything wrong with it but clearly I was wrong.

In my mind at the time I was convinced I had done the right thing. Sadly as a result of posting in here I'm now questioning whether I have done the right thing. Perhaps naively it was black and white at the time but it seems any decision you take is fraught with much wider implications.

The Corinthian

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

In my mind at the time I was convinced I had done the right thing. Sadly as a result of posting in here I'm now questioning whether I have done the right thing. Perhaps naively it was black and white at the time but it seems any decision you take is fraught with much wider implications.

Fair enough, although whether you did do the right thing or not is actually irrelevant to your original question:

So, do you get harassed if/when you try to do the right thing?

And the answer to that is that you can get harassed because it may not be the right thing, even if you're convinced it is, and/or may not be the right thing from the perspective of the harasser.

Whether what you did was the right thing is another discussion.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's actually plenty of people who have argued that neither Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden did the right thing. Whistleblowing is an interesting example, because there the 'right' thing can result in a seriously 'wrong' thing.

For example, what if someone had blown the whistle on the Coventry Blitz, that had been uncovered because British intelligence had cracked the Enigma code? Thousands of lives would have been saved, yet it would have alerted the Germans that their messages were compromised and this in turn could have prolonged the war, resulting the the loss of tens of thousands of lives. In the end the British government chose to remain silent.

Of course, in the case of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, they were the ones to calculate the consequences of their actions and choose for everyone else. But did they really have the right to do so? Was Bradley Manning, someone who clearly had mental health problems, in any position to make such a decision? And was Snowden justified when he blew the whistle on NSA espionage of allied European governments and firms? As a European, I'd be tempted to say yes as it means less espionage on European governments and businesses by a foreign power. But were I American, I might not be so supportive.

I'm not arguing either way to the above, only to say that there is rarely if ever a right thing and whenever we claim that something is clearly moral or the 'right thing' to do, it's only because we believe it to be so and have no compunction in imposing our standards of morality on others.

It was clear from your first post that you feel you did the right thing, but do you reason you did the right thing? One thing I'd note is that even now, that you've gone so far as to explain what it was that you did, you've only given one side of the story and have failed to explain what the objection to this 'right thing' was.

Essentially, you're still coming into this discussion presuming that we should be accepting your definition of right and wrong.

Sure, personal moral standards can be warped to mean anything, and can claim a subjective definition for what is right and wrong: By that definition, literally nothing is right or wrong, since it is subjective - doesn't lead to a very interesting discussion, because it's literally impossible to discuss, it's all just opinion.

Usually what is right or wrong, is determined based on laws, and other ethical/moral codes - and typically we judge right vs wrong, based upon wider more complex sets of principles based on these moral/ethical codes - that gives some grounding to it all, so it's not all just subjective.

I don't really treat ethics/morals as a subjective thing, because I think people should be held to certain - maybe complex - standards, and if we don't hold people to certain standards, then they get the 'out' of just claiming that none of their actions are immoral 'in their opinion', and can use that as justification for screwing others over in society.

A lot of the time, people who want to manipulate others or society overall, and gain personal benefit through doing so, often use similar 'out's to stuff like that: trying to make things seem like just a matter of opinion, instead of there being some well-determined ethical/moral code that is usually applied to something, or sometimes even to spread doubt about scientific/empirical evidence, to make 'facts' seem more opinion-based and subjective than they really are.

You even get some silly crowds, like postmodernists, trying to claim that reality itself is subjective - leading to absurd ideas, such as being able to make gravity repel instead of attract, just by believing that.

So, there's not a lot of practical use to considering morals entirely subjective - got to ground them within a certain minimum standard of rules, and build upon that - then you can treat them more objectively.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sure, personal moral standards can be warped to mean anything, and can claim a subjective definition for what is right and wrong: By that definition, literally nothing is right or wrong, since it is subjective - doesn't lead to a very interesting discussion, because it's literally impossible to discuss, it's all just opinion.

I think it almost is impossible to discuss, at least in terms simple duality. More correctly, there's no right or wrong thing to do; only least wrong or best right. At best.

That still allows for an interesting discussion, IMHO, although it'll likely disappoint those who were hoping for the existence of absolute truths in the universe.

Usually what is right or wrong, is determined based on laws, and other ethical/moral codes - and typically we judge right vs wrong, based upon wider more complex sets of principles based on these moral/ethical codes - that gives some grounding to it all, so it's not all just subjective.

Why are they not subjective? Or derived from false axioms? How many laws exist that have been repealed because ultimately popular morality has moved out of sync with the morality of the law in question? Or that it turned out they were based on false assumptions? How many social moral codes have changed over the years?

Yet you claim that these laws and morals are based on objective reasoning? Doesn't add up, I'm afraid.

I don't really treat ethics/morals as a subjective thing, because I think people should be held to certain - maybe complex - standards, and if we don't hold people to certain standards, then they get the 'out' of just claiming that none of their actions are immoral 'in their opinion', and can use that as justification for screwing others over in society.

I've never said that we should not have moral codes, only that there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong; we just do our best to impose a morality that best fits the society we live in.

Until it doesn't, and then we change it.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think it almost is impossible to discuss, at least in terms simple duality. More correctly, there's no right or wrong thing to do; only least wrong or best right. At best.

That still allows for an interesting discussion, IMHO, although it'll likely disappoint those who were hoping for the existence of absolute truths in the universe.

Why are they not subjective? Or derived from false axioms? How many laws exist that have been repealed because ultimately popular morality has moved out of sync with the morality of the law in question? Or that it turned out they were based on false assumptions? How many social moral codes have changed over the years?

Yet you claim that these laws and morals are based on objective reasoning? Doesn't add up, I'm afraid.

I've never said that we should not have moral codes, only that there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong; we just do our best to impose a morality that best fits the society we live in.

Until it doesn't, and then we change it.

I didn't means laws are made based on objective morals/ethics, but they give a base for speaking objectively about such things - for speaking more objectively, within the legal framework.

In order to have useful discussions about morals/ethics, there needs to be a baseline of agreed morals to start with - as that gives some grounding, which can (for all intents and purposes, between the people discussing it) be considered 'objective' (even if it isn't really), as a baseline to judge everything else by.

clairefontaine

I'm missing something in this discussion. Why is it anyone else's business what you decide to do with YOUR car?

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't means laws are made based on objective morals/ethics, but they give a base for speaking objectively about such things - for speaking more objectively, within the legal framework.

That's a bit like suggesting that the Bible gives us a base for speaking objectively about the existence of God.

I suppose you can be objective, based upon a subjective axiom; but if that axiom is false and your reasoning is correct, then you'll inevitably end up with a false conclusion - that's the problem with logic.

In order to have useful discussions about morals/ethics, there needs to be a baseline of agreed morals to start with - as that gives some grounding, which can (for all intents and purposes, between the people discussing it) be considered 'objective' (even if it isn't really), as a baseline to judge everything else by.

Well useful is the key word there, because there's a difference between a baseline of agreed morals to start with and that those morals are in reality moral or good. In practical terms we choose the least wrong or best right, as I pointed out earlier. But that's not the same thing as something being objectively right or wrong in any absolute terms.

Basically, there's a difference between an absolute answer for right and wrong and a practical one that a best guess for the time being. Otherwise that baseline of yours wouldn't keep on getting changed.

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm missing something in this discussion. Why is it anyone else's business what you decide to do with YOUR car?

There's plenty of cases where the generosity of a third party may be your business. If someone offers a cigarette to someone whom you care about and who is trying to give smoking, then you have a good reason to care what that third party does with their possessions.

Similarly, I suggested earlier one possible way that the car could end up causing more harm than good, which even got the OP to doubt his actions.

Kintarō Hattori

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm missing something in this discussion. Why is it anyone else's business what you decide to do with YOUR car?

It's not per se but it seems I've been very misguided and naive in the course of my actions. I was surprised and disappointed to find out that I was getting an earful for doing what I had considered to be the right thing. I had thought it was an action that would carry with it no negative reaction but I was wrong.

I came on here to see whether other people had a similar experience only to learn that my viewpoint on the subject was far too simplistic and that every decision you make in life has to be considered, pondered and reconsidered as it's never a linear decision but in fact everything you do can be split into multiple tangets based on all the factors involved.

seenitall

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

It's not per se but it seems I've been very misguided and naive in the course of my actions. I was surprised and disappointed to find out that I was getting an earful for doing what I had considered to be the right thing. I had thought it was an action that would carry with it no negative reaction but I was wrong.

I came on here to see whether other people had a similar experience only to learn that my viewpoint on the subject was far too simplistic and that every decision you make in life has to be considered, pondered and reconsidered as it's never a linear decision but in fact everything you do can be split into multiple tangets based on all the factors involved.

I'm sorry but to me it seems you are making a lofty-sounding mountain out of a molehill here, in an effort to justify and rationalise what could very well be nothing more complex than your girlfriend's jealousy of your sister benefitting from a generous gift from her brother. A gift of something you no longer needed.

Giving you an earful, as you put it, and moaning about it sounds to me like bad form on her part, and, far from trying to justify her behaviour, I'd be looking at it with a somewhat more penetrating perspective than "I made a mistake... it wasn't worth it for all the grief... too simplistic... linear decision... multiple tangents... yadda yadda..."

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a bit like suggesting that the Bible gives us a base for speaking objectively about the existence of God.

I suppose you can be objective, based upon a subjective axiom; but if that axiom is false and your reasoning is correct, then you'll inevitably end up with a false conclusion - that's the problem with logic.

Well useful is the key word there, because there's a difference between a baseline of agreed morals to start with and that those morals are in reality moral or good. In practical terms we choose the least wrong or best right, as I pointed out earlier. But that's not the same thing as something being objectively right or wrong in any absolute terms.

Basically, there's a difference between an absolute answer for right and wrong and a practical one that a best guess for the time being. Otherwise that baseline of yours wouldn't keep on getting changed.

There's plenty of cases where the generosity of a third party may be your business. If someone offers a cigarette to someone whom you care about and who is trying to give smoking, then you have a good reason to care what that third party does with their possessions.

Similarly, I suggested earlier one possible way that the car could end up causing more harm than good, which even got the OP to doubt his actions.

That's a fair point. I recall someone in school who got a corvette from his grandmother for his 16th birthday.

Who gives a 16 year old boy who can't drive a corvette?

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

I'm sorry but to me it seems you are making a lofty-sounding mountain out of a molehill here, in an effort to justify and rationalise what could very well be nothing more complex than your girlfriend's jealousy of your sister benefitting from a generous gift from her brother. A gift of something you no longer needed.

He may be making a mountain out of a molehill or he may have erred as he fears. Honestly, we don't know and neither do we need to know - this isn't the Personal Issues board after all.

Giving you an earful, as you put it, and moaning about it sounds to me like bad form on her part, and, far from trying to justify her behaviour, I'd be looking at it with a somewhat more penetrating perspective than "I made a mistake... it wasn't worth it for all the grief... too simplistic... linear decision... multiple tangents... yadda yadda..."

That's the point of the Humanities board.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Who gives a 16 year old boy who can't drive a corvette?

A rich and senile grandmother?

Or a controlling one; as I was reminded recently some use generosity as a means of controlling others. Infantilize them, dissuade them from finding a way to take care of themselves, and they can never break away from that control.

clairefontaine

I agree with seenitall, it sounds like jealousy/begrudgery to me.

fungun

In personal situations, gifting can be complex though, especially if there are a number of potential gift recipients who may feel more worthy of it/jealous of it. In such a circumstance you have actively given something (nice gesture) but you have also passively not given something to others (they may feel slighted).

That could be almost like situation where a parent might feel one child needs more from their will as they arent financially secure whereas other children are. Is that nice to the person who needs it, or a kick in the teeth to the others who may have worked harder to make sure they are financially secure.

As a second angle, I have one relative who gives very expensive gifts to kids....and it does make others feel a bit **** at times like Christmas when their gifts can look a bit **** in comparison, even though their own gifts may be more thoughtful/personalised