Doing an unwarrented search on a known criminal to find evidence and going to jail because of it or even assasinating a corrrupt politician who would get of jail easily on bail. All of these are points that agree with this doing something bad for the greater good harambe is a very bad example they killed a gorilla forno reason and did bad #ripharambe
In order to progress in life, you must be able to make decision to get you there. Of course some will be morally wrong, but it is the progression, provided that you don't always do it. Along with progression in life, there is also happiness which can be gained by making decisions.
since the act wouldn't be wrong if it were for the greater good, but I get the purpose of the question. I'm not a consequentialist so I don't think any act that promotes net-happiness or whatever is necessarily good. I'd say the greater good factors in all moral principles. So if you believe in natural rights, for example, that would count towards the greater good. I take the greater good as the greater maximization of all moral factors. Therefore, even if you're a Kantian or deontologist, the greater good is still most important because it reaches a greater moral standpoint than before. That's good no matter what ethical theory you pertain to.
I guess it would really have to depend on the situation. I believe that it would have to boil down to fight or flight circumstances. Example, If I had to protect my children, form being hurt in anyway such as murder, rape or physical harm. I would do what ever that took wrong or right / morale's, wouldn't be a factor in the matter. And as for stealing a loaf of bread, yes stealing is wrong, and so is poaching, but if catching a fish or killing a rabbit for dinner to keep my babies from going hungry then so be it.
I say it is because take Osaka bin ladin for example. Its not right to kill but us killing him has stopped terrorism for a while. His death meant freedom from the chains of war. His death has slowly stopped the war. The alqueda has no leader anymore. So because of that yes in a sense. Not all the time.
I would go as far as to say that it is wrong to even steal one loaf of bread to save 100 children from starvation. Morally speaking, we must have absolutes that dictate our lives.
Before I really state my argument, let me clarify:
I have no intention to argue what constitutes good or evil, or to set down any objective source from which we could derive good and evil. For the sake of the issue at hand, morals themselves can be subjective. Within this subjectivity, however, anything one is sure is right is my definition of 'right.' Finally, I also don't want to address so-called 'grey issues' in terms of one's morality. Things that a person is genuinely unsure of the rightness or wrongness of are for a different argument. I'd rather stick to basics that, generally, are clear cut goods or evils (e.g. murder of an innocent, rape, etc.). Though again, morality is subjective here.
All this being said, it is never right to do one wrong for the sake of a greater good for 3 main reasons:
1. To say otherwise would be, in effect, to disregard morality altogether and make it useless.
2. The logical extension of calling wrong right in any circumstance is reprehensible and dangerous.
3. This logical extension of calling wrong right in any circumstance could justify any sort of evil, so long as one could somehow argue that it would 'benefit the many.'