Right vs Good

Balancing Right and Good: Finding the Ethical Middle Ground

Imagine a person in a corporate role who prides themselves on being straightforward and committed to ethical principles. They refuse to participate in practices they believe are unethical such as overlooking fraudulent reporting, ignoring unfair treatment of employees or cutting corners in product safety. This employee might expose malpractice, advocate for fair treatment or push for transparency in company policies. In doing so, they may risk their career stability and position in the enterprise if nothing else.

In environments where unethical practices are normalised or even encouraged for profit, being straightforward and ethically sound can be seen as a liability rather than a virtue. Consequently, this employee might lose their job or face social isolation within the company and others might view their actions as disruptive or overly idealistic. They are doing "the right thing" by standing up for principles of honesty and fairness but is it “good” also. This debate of distinguishing between “Right” and “Good” is not new and can be traced back to as far as the start of human interaction.

This dilemma is real in many sectors, from finance to media, in HR and IT and of course sales and production, where standing against an unethical status quo can lead to personal or professional losses....and somehow standing against unethical practices can also lead to personal and professional gains.

In ethical discourse, "what is right" and "what is good" often seem to overlap but hold distinct meanings and implications. This nuanced difference shapes our perceptions, decisions and moral judgments. The concept might initially appear straightforward, if something is "good," then surely it must be "right." But real-life situations challenge this assumption, revealing that what appears good is not always right and similarly what is right may not always appear good.

The Drama “Pill” and the Pharmaceutical Industry

The Hindi drama Pill depicts an industry where the pharmaceutical companies, driven by profit, resort to life-threatening practices to promote and sell their drugs. These companies may hide critical side effects, fabricate research or bribe officials to get approvals. Here, characters representing “good” doctors or ethical officers within the industry face daunting challenges. They know that exposing the truth is “right,” but the powerful pharmaceutical “mafia” threatens anyone who stands in their way, making their exposing of truth a “Bad” thing to do.

These characters are acting ethically, guided by their sense of duty to protect public health. But, in trying to do what is right, they lose out on what might seem “good” from a practical standpoint i.e. career stability, personal safety, and financial security. They might also be caught into a dichotomy of how to expose the wrong doing while establishing the RIGHT way to do the GOOD thing. The power of the pharmaceutical mafia, along with the consequences faced by those who stand up to it, highlights the challenge of balancing ethical integrity with personal safety and practical outcomes.

Good and Right in “ablution”

Let us move now to another day to day life example. The belief that regular ablution (vudu) could prevent many illnesses is an example that illustrates the difference between what is "good" and what is "right." Ablution is a ritual in Islam that involves washing the hands, mouth, nose, face, arms and feet, symbolising purity and preparing oneself for prayer. Performing ablution regularly is indeed beneficial for hygiene, as it involves frequent washing and can help reduce the risk of general infections by keeping the skin and mucous membranes clean. Once i was sitting with an uncle during the COVID pandemic peak. He said that those who do ablution will never get COVID. While i agreed with him on the face but was conflicted in my thought that it was a good thing to say and practice but not entirely “right”. It’s good to encourage cleanliness and regular ablution as part of daily routine, it may not be "right" in a medical sense to claim it as a reliable prevention method for a specific disease such as COVID-19.

This distinction reflects how what seems "good" for morale, encouragement, or cultural adherence may not align with scientific evidence or medical advice or a simple research. In this case, promoting ablution as a preventive measure may positively encourage hygiene and regular religious practice, but it would be misleading if considered a substitute for scientifically recommended measures like vaccination, wearing masks, or physical distancing. And this will be true for any other health related measures.

The examples of people striving to be ethical and facing consequences highlight the struggle between "doing what is right" versus "doing what is good." Here, we see individuals who aim to uphold ethical standards but face opposition and even punishment, especially when they confront systems or industries where corruption and unethical practices are deeply entrenched.

The Real-Life Relevance of Right vs. Good

These examples mirror real-life challenges. Pharmaceutical (or any other) industry whistleblowers and advocates for corporate transparency frequently face career risks, social isolation and legal battles. In all cases, the individuals attempt to align "good" intentions with "right" actions, only to realize that what is ethically correct, technically right and looks good often comes at a cost.

Balancing Right and Good: Finding the Ethical Middle Ground

Balancing what is right with what is good is not always clear-cut. In fact, this balance is often situational, requiring one to deeply consider "context" and "perspective". In such instances, The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck can provide valuable insight into making difficult ethical choices that may not be easy but align with a higher sense of purpose and duty.

Ultimately, the pursuit of ethical integrity means striving to align what is good with what is right, yet being prepared to make sacrifices when these two values conflict. Recognising this distinction allows individuals to navigate life’s complex ethical landscapes with greater clarity and conviction, embracing both the comfort of "good" and the challenge of "right" in a world that rarely grants both in equal measure.