Is acting wrong okay if nobody finds out?

Student’s name
Instructor’s name
Philosophy
Date
Wrong or Right
Human behaviour is dependent on various variables. Psychologists admit that the environment, in which a person is raised in, influences a person’s behaviour. Children growing in war-torn nations such as Sudan and Iraq have followed the footsteps of their fathers and taken arms in war. Christians believe that their conscience influences individuals’ behaviour. The human conscience enables one to choose between right and wrong. However, criminals are today undertaking inhumane acts in the society, demonstrating a lack of conscience. Rebels and military have massacred thousands of residents in Burundi, Ukraine and Syria in the recent past. However, the criminal acts have taken place because good individuals in the society failed to act. Today, it is common for a minor to kill a pet and hide, while the parents keep searching for the pet. The disturbing trends have increased cases of corruption, cyberbullying and cheating in exams. However, some critics argue that acting wrong is allowed in some cases but in other scenarios, their negative externalities make the action wrong. The essay evaluates both sides of the argument.
Intentionally Acting Wrong
Acting wrong negates the importance of morality in the society. The actions even done in secret are wrong since the risks are high and lead to more sin. A wife that commits adultery in secret risks contracting sexually transmitted infections (Trivers 390). Ultimately, if the woman has sexual intercourse with the husband, the spouse is likely to contract the same diseases without knowing.

God was angry with David after committing adultery with Bathsheba and punished David through the Kings’ descendants. David killed Uriah so as to cover their affair with Bathsheba. The story demonstrates that God is all-knowing and will uncover all wrong actions done in secret. Similarly, employed drivers today syphon fuel from their employers’ vehicles and resell the fuel to unsuspecting customers. The behaviour further increases cost on the owners of the vehicles, leading to redundancies to some of the drivers. Acting wrong has no benefits and negatively impacts on the lives of thousands across the society. Morality and societal norms require all wrongdoers to be punished, demonstrating that acting wrong is not right for the community. Socrates agrees with the argument by implying that bad people act wrong intentionally. Thieves come to steal intentionally while murderers kill intentionally (Stauffer 140). Socrates concludes that such people act in full knowledge of their actions and intend to undertake the wrong actions.
Consequentialism in Acting Wrong
Consequentialists that a person’s actions ought to be questioned based on their results. The group posits that individuals act in good faith but their actions may lead to negative effects. Proponents have argued that the human conscience ensures that people act according to societal norms. Proponents have argued that it is okay to kill to save five others, who require organs to live. However, the ethical directions of the argument are obscured. Similarly, acting wrong as a consequence of either good or bad actions is bad. Today, auditors have usually kept quiet after identifying cases of fraud within the books of a company. Moreover, lawyers have litigated against victims who are blameless, but poor, and won cases against the run of justice. The ethical and moral implications of the actions have impacted adversely on the lives of millions across the globe. Fake doctors have treated patients, without their patients ever suspecting. However, the actions risk the lives of patients that visit the fake doctors for their services. Plato dichotomized the situation, indicating that following the consequentialists’ ideologies would bring more harm than good in the society. Today, ethicists admit the rules have been blurred by the requirements of justice, especially in giving proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the consequentialism ideologies supporting acting wrong are baseless and outdated.
Human Virtues
Individuals can act wrong if the result is positive. Plato admits people act virtuously since their human conscience shapes their actions. Employees that regularly steal from their employers to satisfy their appetite for gambling act wrong and their actions are punishable. Similarly, others have lost family’s savings while gambling, leading to financial troubles. Plato alluded that people act in self-interest; therefore, the actions of the gamble are based on their desire to win big in the short term (Dilman 14). However, after winning the jackpot, the gambler returns every penny stolen from the company’s coffers. The actions illustrate human conscience, demonstrating that the gambler knew the actions were wrong. Socrates had argued that being virtuous is inborn among human beings, though each person has a differing understanding and application of the term in every society. Socrates further intimates that based on human conscience a person may act wrong for a just cause. Investigative reporters act wrong while investigating stories, some paying prostitutes to illustrate the rot in the society. However, the public fails to comprehend the lies and brainwashing undertaken by the media. However, some offer education to the public to demonstrate that the vice is bad, a complete societal norm accepted in the society.
Pleasing Others
Plato admits that some individuals may act wrong to please others. Previously, the society accepted that any person could discipline errant parents. However, other parents were angry at the actions and sought revenge by punishing non-errant kids. The behaviour forced various societies to ban such norms and requiring each child be disciplined by their parents. Similarly, executives may fabricate books of accounts to please their shareholders, while the company continues to suffer. Enron had published their accounts that pleased their shareholders, though the company was under debt. However, before the company’s liquidation, the company had duly paid all shareholders their dividends. Politicians have also acted wrongly in public to protect their interests. The contrasting revelations intimate that the actions were plausible within the confines of the law.
Personal Opinion
Societal norms highly condemn acting wrong in the society. Every human being has been blessed with senses to differentiate appropriate times whether to act or not. However, it was difficult to have a standard to measure which acts meet the moral threshold. Imperatively, morality ensures individuals can weigh between good and bad actions. Personally, acting wrong is a hazard to the society. Tolerating acting wrong of all forms will ruin the fabric of the society and will create an unruly society. Some nations have enforced laws to curtail acting wrong in professions such as medicine and engineering, ignoring other professions, where criminals are allowed to hoodwink their victims unabated. The society ought to fight the vice holistically and ensure all forms of acting wrong that are bad are punishable by law. Moreover, parents and church leaders ought to educate children on the negative impacts of acting wrong in the society. Youths ought to follow a strict conduct of conduct, to ensure all youths do not fall prey to the vice. Consequently, acting wrong is wrong and ought to be condoned in the society.
Works Cited
Trivers, Robert. “Deceit and self-deception.” Mind the gap. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 373-393.Dilman, Ilham. Free will: An historical and philosophical introduction. Routledge, 2013. Print
Stauffer, Devin. “5 On “Classic Natural Right” in Natural Right and History.” Brill’s Companion to Leo Strauss’ Writings on Classical Political Thought. Brill, 2015. 128-146.