Right or wrong.... - Page 4

Some people believe that being moral means acting for the well being of others, or to put the need of another ahead of ourselves. If this is true, Mother Theresa would be considered morally good. Now, what if the only reason she acted the way she did was because she was born that way. The only thing she ever thought to do was to help people. Altruism was in her nature. Would this make her a bad person for acting upon her desires. She would not have any acknowledgement of free will. Her actions would be dicated by nature and she would be no different then a ant in a colony.

hey all.
I am new here so I dont wanna b too bold. I think if u look into it long enough you will see that no one , ever , has come up with a simple and universal "law" or "statement" or whatever, that identifies "right and wrong"
None of the things you talk about like, murder or torture or theft are wrong. None of them are right. We just cant handle that concept because of our emotional connnection to our lives and the people and material objects in them.
We call murder wrong only because it upsets us.
We dont like our things to be stolen so theft becomes wrong.
I think that makes it purely "subjective"
but I'm not that smart so hey.....

Geez, what a dummy

Just kidding

quote:

---

Altruism was in her nature. Would this make her a bad person for acting upon her desires.

---

when I first read it, I felt there was something wrong about the preception? It just seemed to slip past, but I couldn't swollow it.

quote:

---

Some people believe that being moral means acting for the well being of others, or to put the need of another ahead of ourselves. If this is true, Mother Theresa would be considered morally good.

---

quote:

---

Now, what if the only reason she acted the way she did was because she was born that way. The only thing she ever thought to do was to help people. Altruism was in her nature.

---

ReRead it, so far so good but . . .

quote:

---

Would this make her a bad person for acting upon her desires. She would not have any acknowledgement of free will.

---

Then I saw what was the problem?
She would have of free will; so No, this would not make her a bad person.
Free-Will is to have choice?
Even if the alternative choice would seem unthinkable,
it still exist in the thoughts.
Although she may be unaware (unconciously or subconciously)
by the repetition of doing such an act
but she still (choose these actions) to live such a life.

Ah fooey, we were all wrong, it seems the question wasn't right or wrong, but right or left, we just sent some old couple into the boonies, good job people.

if you claim that being gay is a choice (which i disaree with unless you look at it like a genetic influenced choice).. anyway so if you claim that being gay is a choice and also say that it is selfish, hw can it be more selfis then going with opposite sex if thats what they would want more?????? if you say thats not what they want more well then than it is not a choice... how is it selfish if they would prefer to be with the opposite sex?? (other than the baby argument i got u stuck)

(iin response to sleeping's anti homosecxaul postition i coldnt find thread on it)

Back to the original question, I believe things are right in proportion to how much happiness is spread and so are wrong in proportion to how much pain is spread. But you've got to understand this extends to more than just humans; it extends to all life; and that you may be unaware of the extent of consequences of your actions. But nonetheless thats the fun of it.

quote:

---

I believe things are right in proportion to how much happiness is spread and so are wrong in proportion to how much pain is spread

---

So if I as one person gain great happiness by helping somebody it is less right then ten people who get pleasure out of beating somebody?

quote:

---

So if I as one person gain great happiness by helping somebody it is less right then ten people who get pleasure out of beating somebody?

---

certainly sounds like it to me?

It is not possible for us to know all the facts in any given situation. We might find ourselves having miss judged something, it happens to the best of us.

For this reason the scriptures teach caution - Judge not less you be judged, only God sees the heart, etc.

While there are times when we are forced to judge, choosing who we will marry, live with, work for or hire. We should limit our judgements to those few times and then be sure we have all the information.

I think our media puts us in a bad situation, always incouraging us to judge things that are far from us - things that we are really not qualified to judge.

My sugestion is to hold your tongue - you're not as smart as you think you are - don't let your ego fool you.

quote:

---

So if I as one person gain great happiness by helping somebody it is less right then ten people who get pleasure out of beating somebody?

---

Why do you judge quantity to be more important than quality?

right and wrong are always opinions. and opinions can not be considerd to be absolutly true. EVER. its just not allowed. so there really can't ever be any standard right or wrong, unless everbody opinion is the same. then if anybodys does something that they think is wrong. which doesn't happen. people just don't do things that they think are wrong. so if they do something "wrong" its not wrong anymore. becuase they did it, and people just don't do things they think are wrong. they will always have a reason. always. "i don't know. maybe i'm wrong. maybe it's a greek fuckin' tragedy." - fight club

quote:

---

Why do you judge quantity to be more important than quality?

---

"I believe things are right in proportion to how much happiness is spread and so are wrong in proportion to how much pain is spread" Sound familiar?

quote:

---

and opinions can not be considerd to be absolutly true. EVER. its just not allowed

---

Is that not your own opinion? Therefore your opinion disproves your opinion...

quote:

---

people just don't do things that they think are wrong

---

So a person can justify any act but does that make it right? By your definition you would have to agree that it is right for suicide bombers to kill civilians. Bush was right to wage war on Iraq just for his own personal gain. Is this your belief?

yes. that is why he was right. it may be fucked up. but he did 'cuase he wants to. doesn't mean you have to accept it. doesn't mean you can't "put a cap in there ass". but its still o.k. for them to do it. and my opinion isn't wrong, its an opninon. thats all it is.

So if I wanted to slaughter your family you could look me in the eye and tell me that I was absolutely right in my choice.