TED Conversations

Haley Goranson

Spiritual Being Having a Human Experience,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Which is more important, to do right or to do good?

A rich man walks down the street and drop a 20 dollar bill. You know he will not even notice it is gone. On the side of the street sits a beggar who looks really hungry. The good thing is to give the money to the beggar, the right thing is to give it back to the man who dropped it.



- Maybe instead of taking this question , as a question of right and wrong or judgment, perhaps what we can take from this is that there are a variety of opinions and many people have different ideas of what is morally right. That is beautiful to me. This is just an example that good and right are almost undefinable, or at the least the definition is always changing for everyone.

Topics: money poverty
+8
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 7 2013: Let’s change this little; a man needs a kidney and the other man has two kidneys.

    Should it matter if the man in need is an obese drunk or a wounded healthy police officer? Or rather the other man is an obese drunk or a healthy police officer?

    If a rich man wins a lottery we can hope he does good with it, but we do not have the right to take it from him and give it to some else. Nor his summer house, second car, or the $20 he dropped.
    • thumb
      Jan 7 2013: Hi Don,
      I would not give up a kidney for an obese drunk. He is showing me that he cannot, or will not take care of his body, so I would not give him part of my body. Anyway, I don't honestly think they would do a kidney transplant on an obese drunk. They might encourage him to lose weight and stop drinking first?

      I also do not believe they would TAKE a kidney for transplant from an obese drunk...his organs are probably not in very good shape because of the alchohol....do you think? They usually take only healthy organs for transplant.

      I agree....it is not appropriate to take something from one person (rich or poor) and give it to someone else:>)
    • Jan 8 2013: "If a rich man wins a lottery we can hope he does good with it, but we do not have the right to take it from him and give it to some else. Nor his summer house, second car, or the $20 he dropped."

      Why do we not have that right? Granted it would be highly unfair and disruptive if it happened randomly but doing it systematically is an accepted practice (taxes) and there is no fundamental reason why that couldn't go as far as not allowing people to have a second home? Accumulating as much wealth as you can get your hands on is not a human right (except to libertarians). I'm not saying a Nobel Prize winning scientist or a an exceptionally distinguished soldier don't deserve the reward of having a second home, but I can understand why people get angry when people with comfortable desk jobs, a mediocre level of education and no special accomplishments get to have 27 homes and a superyacht while other people who do back breaking labor barely get enough food to survive.
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: Society requires rules and the rules must ably equally to all, and without society there is anarchy and with anarchy you have nothing. (No schools, no jobs, no phones, no laws, no noble prize.)
        To me “you earn it, you own it” is a basic rule in society. And that applies to wealth, respect, trust, health, intelligence, wisdom, spirituality, friends and anything.

        Why do you think we do have the right and who gave us that right?
        Is it a god given right?
        A government given right?
        or something each of us decide for ourselves?
        and why limit it to wealth, why not a limit on number of friends or amount of education?
        • Jan 8 2013: "To me “you earn it, you own it” is a basic rule in society."

          The IRS disagrees, so do I and I think most people, especially people from outside the United States but also a majority within the United States.

          "and why limit it to wealth, why not a limit on number of friends or amount of education?"

          Joe being friends with Jack doesn't prevent David from being friends with Jack at the same time. Joe controlling a disproportionate amount of resources necessarily limits the amount of resources David can control, because the total amount of resources is limited and in reality neither Joe nor David are brilliant scientists who can discover ways to harness resources more efficiently all on their own. Education takes up resources, so yeah, there should be a limit somewhere, but 99.999% of the people would never obtain the 15 or so university degrees required to hit that limit.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.