Saying something, X, is the "right" thing to do in the situation, S, usually is just shorthand meaning:
1) Cost-benefit analysis including consideration of consequences and means yields that X is the best action going forward in situation S.
2) Temptation exists to take action Y which is not equal to X, which appears to promise a short-term personal gratification, but with consequences which are not as good as X, considered impersonally.
It is then said in situation, S, that X is the "right" thing to do, which is equivalent to a plea to have faith and resist temptation, taking instead the course which is best in the long run.
Worth noting is that in national economics the basic principle behind is that a person maximizes his interests opposite of optimizing them; thus probably render the answer of Y critically more often than X.
I dunno where that came from.
In an objective view, there's no right or wrong, efficency nor inefficency or anything else subject to your views.
So, I guess that's what you've come up with too, probably a more detailed description but that's my own best view.
I still think you're both wrong.
I think post-modernism is a way to madness.
It's frustrating sometimes to have to conduct your life while respecting a myriad of value systems that disagree with each other.
You can always choose to disrespect, though.
Well, it's certainly easier.
Wait, what both?
Ok, cool. Help me out, how have you thought about it?
Saying something, X, is the "right" thing to do in the situation, S, usually is just shorthand meaning:
1) Cost-benefit analysis including consideration of consequences and means yields that X is the best action going forward in situation S.
2) Temptation exists to take action Y which is not equal to X, which appears to promise a short-term personal gratification, but with consequences which are not as good as X, considered impersonally.
It is then said in situation, S, that X is the "right" thing to do, which is equivalent to a plea to have faith and resist temptation, taking instead the course which is best in the long run.
Worth noting is that in national economics the basic principle behind is that a person maximizes his interests opposite of optimizing them; thus probably render the answer of Y critically more often than X.
I dunno where that came from.
In an objective view, there's no right or wrong, efficency nor inefficency or anything else subject to your views.
So, I guess that's what you've come up with too, probably a more detailed description but that's my own best view.
I can't really contribute.
I'm open to new ideas when you find some.
Try.
Sorry to all concrete up in here, but what's the situational example? What exactly don't you agree with?
Of the concept in general- if you think of a decision as a Choose-Your-Adventure sort of story, and you can make two choices (getting all many-worlds interpretation in here)- isn't it possible to think that one world that could result is "better" (more favorably aligned to your ideal) than the other? 'Course that's all hinges on your confidence in your ability to read the outcomes. But we all do it to some extent-expect similar outcomes for similar situations. ("Reason", I suppose.)
We are less likely to disappoint and/or confuse each other if we're all on the same page.
Don't you think?
Don't assume I haven't "found" any views. I always have a view.
My views might not always be valid, which is how I can't contribute.
Try not to completely change your posts.
The actual question is very, very difficult to answer, as to how I know which is the "right" choice. It frustrates my friends (most of whom, being at a science-and-technology-oriented school, are T's) to no end when I tell them we have to do something just because it's the right thing to do.