The Destruction of Right and Good

W.D. Ross, in What Makes Right Acts Right, presented an analysis on "right" that was utilitarian in nature; although, the utilitarian he referenced had a marked difference as his tendency was to compare it to hedonism. My point in quoting him is not the contrast but the statement he is making on what is "right." 

Ross wrote regarding right, "The real point at issue between hedonism and utilitarianism on the one hand and their opponents on the other is not whether 'right' means 'productive of so and so'; for it cannot with any plausibility be maintained that it does. The point at issue is that to which we now pass, viz. whether there is any general character which makes right acts right, and if so, what it is. Among the main historical attempts to state a single characteristic of all right actions which is the foundation of their rightness are those made by egoism and utilitarianism."

How can anyone even make a claim that there is such a things as "right" in regard to anything today? With the promotion of individualism for capitalistic purposes, any idea of "right" becomes more generic mixing with ideas of what is "good." This leads to preference and tends to evaporate all ideas of right and good. There will be those who try to convince others that "right" is "good" and that which helps the most. Ross addressed that point in the following passage:

"The first form this attempt takes is the attempt to base rightness on conduciveness to the advantage or pleasure of the agent. This theory comes to grief over the fact, which stares us in the face, that a great part of duty consists in an observance of the rights and a furtherance of the interests of others, whatever the cost to ourselves may be. Plato and others may be right in holding that a regard for the rights of others never in the long run involves a loss of happiness for the agent, that 'the just life profits a man'. But this, even if true, is irrelevant to the rightness of the act. As soon as a man does an action because he thinks he will promote his own interests thereby, he is acting not from a sense of its rightness but from self-interest."

Every action without a moral agent is, in essence, a selfish action, which removes it from qualifying as a "right" or a "good" act because, in one way or another, it is a selfish act. Ross pushes the idea of pleasure from a hedonistic position as a product of utilitarianism, but that, for me, does not work either. It merely contributes to the destruction of any kind of good as pleasure is good for the individual only and thus preference. And, that is where I find culture currently... on a path towards the annihilation of those things that are "right" and "good." For that which is truly "right" and "good" is not that which is for self but that which is for others.

Looking at culture today, how hard is it to label something wrong? I would suggest that to label something of substance as wrong is difficult at best in today's culture. Labeling minor things as wrong is much easier but also problematic as the tendency defaults to an apathetic attitude which is a lazy form of preference.

What is good and right? The issue has become an issue of hyper-preference which cannot possibly be considered good or right yet has really become today's "good." And, if that is what good is then true good is already extinct, leaving preference as king and nothing right under the sun.