Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Just because something's logical, doesn't mean it's also necessarily good. And vice-versa.
Example: The USA has nuclear weapons. The USA is currently wondering what to do about Iran, ISIS, and Russia. Using nuclear weapons would almost surely remove the first two threats since they don't have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, and possibly the third as well. Logicly then, using the very best, most destructive weapons is the logical thing to do. But it's not also the 'good' or 'ethical' thing to do because nuclear weapons are rather indiscriminate in who they kill, and what they destroy.
Example 2: It's logical to execute violent criminals rather than incarcerate them. Why risk a repeat crime once they're released? But executing someone for doing the 'knockout game' seems extreme. Afterall, knocking someone out isn't equal to depriving them of their life so the punishment would seem to be greatly in excess of the actual crime. But it might be more ethical to execute someone who's already proven their gross indifference to the rights of others than chance another crime or even a more serious one as with murder.
Example 3: Restricting business to standards governing fairness isn't logical. Business should be unburdened by conventions of restraint, morals, and ethics so they can do whatever they can to make maximum profits. Maximum profits is good. Removing restraints is good. But 'ends justify the means' isn't also ethical.
Finding a happy balance in life between these three concerns, logic, goodness, and ethics is a constant struggle. But being aware of the tendency for the 3 to conflict helps us by maing us aware that while something might be good, it's worth asking if it's also ethical and/or logical. When things aren't perhaps we should spend more time trying to make the 3 pieces fit a given issue instead of settling for just 1 or 2.
Example: The USA has nuclear weapons. The USA is currently wondering what to do about Iran, ISIS, and Russia. Using nuclear weapons would almost surely remove the first two threats since they don't have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, and possibly the third as well. Logicly then, using the very best, most destructive weapons is the logical thing to do. But it's not also the 'good' or 'ethical' thing to do because nuclear weapons are rather indiscriminate in who they kill, and what they destroy.
Example 2: It's logical to execute violent criminals rather than incarcerate them. Why risk a repeat crime once they're released? But executing someone for doing the 'knockout game' seems extreme. Afterall, knocking someone out isn't equal to depriving them of their life so the punishment would seem to be greatly in excess of the actual crime. But it might be more ethical to execute someone who's already proven their gross indifference to the rights of others than chance another crime or even a more serious one as with murder.
Example 3: Restricting business to standards governing fairness isn't logical. Business should be unburdened by conventions of restraint, morals, and ethics so they can do whatever they can to make maximum profits. Maximum profits is good. Removing restraints is good. But 'ends justify the means' isn't also ethical.
Finding a happy balance in life between these three concerns, logic, goodness, and ethics is a constant struggle. But being aware of the tendency for the 3 to conflict helps us by maing us aware that while something might be good, it's worth asking if it's also ethical and/or logical. When things aren't perhaps we should spend more time trying to make the 3 pieces fit a given issue instead of settling for just 1 or 2.
