You can't argue with success

Would you rather be right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons?

  • Right for Wrong

    Votes: 11 23.4%
  • Wrong for Right

    Votes: 23 48.9%
  • Huh?

    Votes: 13 27.7%

  • Total voters
    47

Users who are viewing this thread

Yes you can, depending on your values. I take your statement to mean that "success is right", meaning that one who is successful is correct, wise, intelligent etc. I would counter that fools are often successful. Of course if one believes success is all that matters (i.e. who cares who is right, smart, stupid etc), then the discussion is irrelevant.
 
Zaro said:
Yes you can, depending on your values. I take your statement to mean that "success is right", meaning that one who is successful is correct, wise, intelligent etc. I would counter that fools are often successful. Of course if one believes success is all that matters (i.e. who cares who is right, smart, stupid etc), then the discussion is irrelevant.

Ditto.

Plus, you could argue that success can be argued with if it is achieved through questionable methods. The nazis were pretty successful at gassing jews; doesn't mean they can't be argued with. Success is nothing more than a measure of something, and what is successful today may not necessarily be successful tomorrow (the economy, for example). As they say, the victors write history, and success can easily be changed.
 
Being right for the wrong reasons doesn't improve me, just proves that I got lucky.
So, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons.
 
all i can say about succes is that it will write 'apocalypse' across the sky...  succes and endeavour to succes are the fundaments of the decline of our western society
 
I feel like you got this idea from a certain southpark episodes...One in which Kenny is in a vegetative state, and Cartman wants the tube removed so he can have Kenny's PSP.
 
There's no reason of being right or wrong - either you're right, or you're wrong. Reasons needn't be voiced for you to be right or wrong.

Thus, I'd like to be right.
 
You guys are confused. This thread is confused.

I'm ****ing confused. We need a lock, or Locke over here.
 
If you're Immanuel Kant with your inconsequentialist ethics, then you'd rather be wrong for the right reasons.

Personally, I'd rather have the right reasons on my side and be wrong, rather than be right for the wrong reasons. Given the latter, it doesn't matter how right the outcome is if your reasoning is wrong. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons negates the righteousness, which is something Plato would agree with as well since one cannot be half right or half wrong. A person is either all good or all bad.
 
Instag0 said:
If you're Immanuel Kant with your inconsequentialist ethics, then you'd rather be wrong for the right reasons.

Personally, I'd rather have the right reasons on my side and be wrong, rather than be right for the wrong reasons. Given the latter, it doesn't matter how right the outcome is if your reasoning is wrong. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons negates the righteousness, which is something Plato would agree with as well since one cannot be half right or half wrong. A person is either all good or all bad.

What would Mill fall under? It seems like utilitarianism would take any road to success, not only that but basing right and wrong solely on the pursuit of success.
 
Back
Top Bottom