Right or wrong.... - Page 2

quote:

---

How can something always be wrong, if you can justify it to make it right?

---

Simple answer justifications don't make it right. Jesus taught that realizing your error, you repent (turn away from doing) and try to recompensate (?).
Death is not something that can be compensated for, we can't return the dead to life. In many aspects, wyote's statement is fundalmentally what Jesus tried to teach.

quote:

---

You make a valid point. But what makes yours more valid than mine?

---

They are all well taken (good) points, which does not say mine is better than yours.

anchises- the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act of murder is not changed by justifying it. it simply gives a logical (for some) reason as to why it happend.

does anyone, anywhere, under any circumstance ever say simply "murder is right" ... i have never encountered any such occasion. if murder was ever "right" we would all be dead.

can anyone come up with something that is "always right" ?

quote:

---

so what if someone says, if you don't go kill an innocent person a thousand innocent people are going to die? what do you do(and lets dispel any possibility of a third option here).

---

quote:

---

however, if more good or prevention of harm goes along with the harm that is inflicted, there is a sort of cancelling out, and the good that is left over is what we have--i suppose this is the best way to judge whether or not something is wrong, or more wrong than something else.

---

Hmm . . .Einstein's work helped to produce the Atom bomb and lead to the Nuclear bomb. Russia has had a bad accident taking innocent life & it is only a matter of time before statics catches up with others. Wouldn't it have been better if Einstein like Hitler had never been or had been murdered before they had a chance to do these things?

surley your all overlooking the definitons of the words and also their implications. what does 'right' and 'wrong' imply... morality. is morality inate , does it depend on anything? if their is a divine creator, an un moved mover , then there are probably things , acts and intentions which have moral implications and are either right or wrong. but if morality comes from sociaty ( which is largley considered the case by most non-religious or political philosophers) then there cant be the notion of an inate right or wrong. to label acts , intentions tec as this is to simply not look into the problem deep enough. If, for arguments sake , this world was a freak accident which had no 'god-like' creator , then to label things as intrinsicly right or wrong doesnt follow. murder , rape and stealing do , in most cases harm peaple , no doubt , but are they in them selves right or wrong? if there is no morality ( which is quite possable outside sociaty) then nothing is right or wrong , its simply nothing.

Right

1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
2. In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
4. Most favorable, desirable, or convenient: the right time to act.
5. In or into a satisfactory state or condition: put things right.
6. In good mental or physical health or order.
7. Intended to be worn or positioned facing outward or toward an observer: the right side of the dress; made sure that the right side of the fabric was visible.

Wrong

1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2. a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

^^both taken from dictionary.com

yes morality is needed for the exsistence of "right" and "wrong" but morality exsists, does it not? sure humans "created" it to a certain extent, but the fact is, its a real thing. it is a way of expressing a preferred way of things.

in "nature" murder is more prevalent, most likely due to animals inability to comprehend morality (to the extent that we humans do). but even "lesser" creatures have some bits of morality, they "respect" their own kind (ok not ALL of the time), they cooperate with other species to achieve certain goals and they rarely (if ever) kill simply for the sake of curing bordem. this is because killing is in fact "wrong" ... if there were nothing to kill then killing would not exsist and then could not be "right" or "wrong" but that is the only case that i see.

like i said, if i am wrong, please disprove me through something logical.

you cant use an ontological argument to prove somthing exists . the fact that we know the concept of a 'god' , or even that many people belive in one doesnt simply define him into existance. the same goes for morals. When we use the term morals we are refering to socialy aceptable ways of acting. You cant give a dictionary definition of right or wrong as language restricts us anyway. To say that murder in animal sociaties is more rife, but in our sociaty its wrong is just plain ignorant to all the other cultures that dont class it as wrong. for example, many cultures kill of the elders when winter time is coming near as they are unlikly to survive and are also a burden. In other cultures stealing isnt evan a concept as they dont own anything personly , one mans house is also the next mans. surley for anything to be 'moral' in the inate sense of a constant throughout the universe would not allow different cultures to have different morals, simply socially acceptable featurs ( which to stop confusion are occasionally referd to as morals'

well, like i said, i think the one thing that defines wrong as being wrong is that it causes pain or suffering in some way. i think this is the whole reason man invented the concept of right and wrong to begin with--to avoid chaos and suffering. i think sometimes people forget this.

I don't think right and wrong were invented based on pain. I think rather, its just plain 'gut feeling'. Things like incest or homosexuality aren't inherently painful, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason many label them evil is plain instinct.

and it is exactly this reason that such things as homosexuality are stupidly labeled immoral. as far as incest is concerned, the bad part about it is that if it produces offspring there is a good chance that they will become retarted or disabled in some way. and because of this, i do believe that incest is sort of a subconscious taboo, that we have naturally.
if it is based on a gut feeling, than what is the purpose of morality in the first place? should all gut feelings be trusted?
there has to be a reason for it, some general characteristic in all things that we consider immoral. if there isn't any reason for something being immoral, than it shouldn't be immoral.
because of this guideline that i have to morality, my personal ethics may sound kind of strange to some people. for instance, i don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, i don't believe that suicide(in some cases) is wrong, i don't believe that anything is wrong unless it causes or could cause some sort of negative outcome for some individual. and as far as incest is concerned, i only believe that it is wrong if it could cause birth defects or any other problems that could go along with it. although it still doesn't take away a sort of natural disgust that i have toward the idea of incest. i guess emotion and logic need to find some sort of balance--emotionless logic is cold and unintelligent emotion is barbaric.

quote:

---

for example, many cultures kill of the elders when winter time is coming near as they are unlikly to survive and are also a burden. In other cultures stealing isnt evan a concept as they dont own anything personly , one mans house is also the next mans.

---

Interesting what cultures are these, I ask because I was not really aware of them?

quote:

---

i don't believe that anything is wrong unless it causes or could cause some sort of negative outcome for some individual. and as far as incest is concerned, i only believe that it is wrong if it could cause birth defects or any other problems that could go along with it.

---

Incest is much more common than most of us would really want to believe.
Those whom I've known, have definite issue which plague their lives & relationships with other to a very large degree.
Definitely in the harmful zone

well, there you go.

i suppose i am wrong in thinking that just because we can imagine something, somehow means it exsists. i tend to put myself in holes when i ramble on enough... being the cynic that i am

the point is tho, morality is real, god is real, just as immorality (or the abscense of morality) and the anti-god (or abscense of god) is real. trying to prove either side is impossible.

my side is that morality and god are real, and also right and wrong are real.

again, please disprove my ideas if possible.

"if it is based on a gut feeling, than what is the purpose of morality in the first place? should all gut feelings be trusted? "
NOPE.
In fact I believe the whole history of man is basically making our gut feelings compatible with our societies.
Man is basically meant to live in small societies in which he is related through an extended family to almost everyone. Those blood and familial ties are what keeps that society stable and relatively peaceful.

Since the day we had big societies (with many strangers), much of history has been man inventing arbitrary (but often convincing!) rules so that we think of the society of strangers as part of that extended family.

Its an 'US' vs 'THEM' thing. First there was religion "us" being christians, "them" being pagans. However, these religious divisions broke down several times because of certain inconsistencies and abuses, which lead christians to redefine the "us" (with the schism came orthodox christians, with the reformation came the protestants).

With the rise of fascism came the idea of 'us' being the race and with communism 'us' was the workers. In the west, the main 'us' still existing in politics is the nation (just a more rational and linguistic version of the racial 'us' ).

All these redefinitions of the 'us' are becauser "emotion and logic need to find some sort of balance" as you said. However, people need these arbitrary divisions to function. Societies which are too divided with many different 'us' fall apart (Czechoslovakia was cut in 2 because of differing language, British India split up because of 2 different religions etc). Thus, I wouldn't be so hard on these arbitray gut or cultural reactions people have towards homosexuals/suicide whatever. They are arbitrary and basically wrong, but you can't redefine our society's 'us' all the time or the society will become far too divided.

"the point is tho, morality is real, god is real, just as immorality (or the abscense of morality) and the anti-god (or abscense of god) is real. trying to prove either side is impossible.
again, please disprove my ideas if possible."

I'm not sure something is real just by someone saying it is!
Morality has been very arbitrary over the years, it changes all the time and it is impossible to 'prove' something cultural people claim is immoral (like homosexuality, suicide, islam, jewery, eloping), really is so.

I just made a post on another thread which is related to this one . . .
maybe I should have posted it here?
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=16-u-thrdid=14427-u-page=3
#24320
---------------------------
In the Native Tradition is the tale of the 4 Winds. Although we (anglo-saxon) percieve this as part of their (native) cosmology, it teaches the ability not be come lost, ie developement of the sense of direction. the bulk of the (dialog) story is devoted to forming the right (right/wrong, good/bad, etc) relationship within their extended family.
The beginning dialog establish the 6 males living in a (round house) wigwam.
The father Tate, his 4 older (mature) sons and his little (younger) son. The mature sons spend their time providing for the others, especially their father & their youngest brother. Each are portrayed as a stereotype of behavior. Wohpe enters the scene, the only female present
which the dynamic force in the story.
Tate is the first to meet Wohpe & discovers that she is the daughter of his friend so he accepts her as his daughter. Yamni, the youngest is next to meet & accept her as his older sister, whom he loves as she gives him attention, she plays & helps him fulfilling her role.
The 4 mature brothers of course have a hard time finding the right relationship with her. which is the teaching of this tale.
--------------------
Consider, isn't finding the right relation the key to forming good relationships?
Whatever term you wish to use. (goood/evil, right/wrong, etc)

quote:

---

Man is basically meant to live in small societies in which he is related through an extended family to almost everyone. Those blood and familial ties are what keeps that society stable and relatively peaceful.

---

As Teen noted man seems to more adapted to small interrelated social units. One of the failings of Jewish Tradition (as others) which Jesus taught overwise was the idea of all people are brothers.
Mitakuye Oyasin . . . all my relations or we are all related?