Click on a panel/paper star to add/remove this to your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality, and to see the links to virtual rooms. Log in
Right/wrong, and good/bad, as ethical dimensions of responsibility/irresponsibility, and success/failure, in humanitarian and development intervention.
For practical action argued and taken name of humanity to qualify as responsible such action, it seeks to be both moral (or better ethical, see below) in principle and materially effective in outcome. Thus an evaluation of a track-record of such practical action may ask: was what was done (a) the 'right' or 'wrong' thing to do, and (b) done 'good' ('well' in earlier grammar) or 'bad' ('badly'). Right/wrong ways of reasoning tend to be rule-, and act-, based, and generally viewed as somehow inherently absolute and universal; that is, as simply either black or white and with no other colours considered. By comparison, good/bad reasoning tends to be more merit- (virtue-) and agent-(agency-) based. Each to a degree has its own characteristic indicators, scales, and measures, whether or not by moral is meant a broad idea of ethical which encompasses besides morality also for example legality, culturality, and other 'right' states of human affairs, and whether or not by material is meant a broad idea of effective inclusive of affect as well as effect. But that of course is not all. Where (and how and when and so forth) responsibly ethical and effective practical action thus conceived can meet where in the interests of practical action successfully achieving what it sets out to be and do it is deemed that they should, may depends on which philosophy (e.g. process-based, outcomes-oriented) is to be applied.