Does two rights equals to a wrong?
Ethics..... what is considered right or wrong....
Injuries to Chelsea keeper by Reading striker
this week.. alot of people have been condenming the challenge of Reading's hunt on Petr Cech during the weekend games...... where Petr Cech was out for a head injury....
I did not see the incident (nor the replays) therefore i cannot really comment if his action was intention to get Petr Cech injured....
In my eariler post, i talk about passion in one game and also trying your very best to do what you need to do... therefore if you think of it in that angle, Hunt is doing what he believes is correct, go in and challenge for the ball (maybe a 50-50 ball)... in his mind, i guess he is trying to win the ball and hopefully score the goal which will help to help his team..... so is it right?
Another scenrio... Same for Petr Cech... he also believes in doing the right thing, making his challenge felt and doing his best to stop the ball so that his team can preserve the clean sheet.. did he back out from the challenge? nope.. it is now a fact that he goes in bravely.. but end up having a depression on his skull .... so in his mind he is trying to do the right thing......
Therefore, if both of the players intention are right.... and because of the aftermath injuries... does this means that Hunt is in the wrong because of the challenge? if there are no injuries... does that means nothing happens? Two rights = to a wrong?
So what does this implicates? if a person acts out of goodwill to do what he is supposed to do, does he still have to take flak for his intentions or his action....
My personal view i guess is this, there are sometimes important to try and do the best to your ablitity, but it is also important to think that does the action justify the intention that you are doing? is that one action really that important for you to harm the other party for you to achieve the goals.... however... i need to point out that if in the end the action is purely accidental.. then maybe it is still not so bad... the damn hard part in all these is how do you justify that real intention of what people do....... you may have court system, jury etc... are you still able to find out the right intention..... it is so difficult to justify...
If that is the case, can we depend on our own ethics to justify our action......(in a recent jackie chan movie, the characters says this "Ethics are for references only.....") therefore, i guess in the end.. it is entirely up to you and decide what you want to do and you are justifiable to your own actions......
Fishy signing off....
Injuries to Chelsea keeper by Reading striker
this week.. alot of people have been condenming the challenge of Reading's hunt on Petr Cech during the weekend games...... where Petr Cech was out for a head injury....
I did not see the incident (nor the replays) therefore i cannot really comment if his action was intention to get Petr Cech injured....
In my eariler post, i talk about passion in one game and also trying your very best to do what you need to do... therefore if you think of it in that angle, Hunt is doing what he believes is correct, go in and challenge for the ball (maybe a 50-50 ball)... in his mind, i guess he is trying to win the ball and hopefully score the goal which will help to help his team..... so is it right?
Another scenrio... Same for Petr Cech... he also believes in doing the right thing, making his challenge felt and doing his best to stop the ball so that his team can preserve the clean sheet.. did he back out from the challenge? nope.. it is now a fact that he goes in bravely.. but end up having a depression on his skull .... so in his mind he is trying to do the right thing......
Therefore, if both of the players intention are right.... and because of the aftermath injuries... does this means that Hunt is in the wrong because of the challenge? if there are no injuries... does that means nothing happens? Two rights = to a wrong?
So what does this implicates? if a person acts out of goodwill to do what he is supposed to do, does he still have to take flak for his intentions or his action....
My personal view i guess is this, there are sometimes important to try and do the best to your ablitity, but it is also important to think that does the action justify the intention that you are doing? is that one action really that important for you to harm the other party for you to achieve the goals.... however... i need to point out that if in the end the action is purely accidental.. then maybe it is still not so bad... the damn hard part in all these is how do you justify that real intention of what people do....... you may have court system, jury etc... are you still able to find out the right intention..... it is so difficult to justify...
If that is the case, can we depend on our own ethics to justify our action......(in a recent jackie chan movie, the characters says this "Ethics are for references only.....") therefore, i guess in the end.. it is entirely up to you and decide what you want to do and you are justifiable to your own actions......
Fishy signing off....
posted by sam fishy at 9:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home