Jump to content

right from wrong


waterwhip

Recommended Posts

We all know that stealing and killing is wrong but what defines right from wrong. Now in this age prostitution is wrong but back in ancient times it was all right, now its wrong for a minor to be pregnant but back then girls 15 and sometimes younger were mothers so what determains right from wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Icyblue' timestamp='1303621904' post='5163425']
Justice = Popular Opinion.
Right and Wrong = Personal Opinion.

And they can vary on definitions based on the culture etc. Many factors...
This isn't a debate :/...
[/quote]
I dont think that the member who made this knew that most of us debaters dont care very much for right and wrong... Or at least just me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Flinsbon' timestamp='1304045735' post='5175352']
If a psychologically stable person would feel guilty after performing some action, then that action is wrong. Otherwise, it is right.

Idk just a guess. Plz don't attack me! :(
[/quote]
Oh come on its the internet you should not be worrying about people who dont even know you, attacking you verbally, if it dont physically hurt you you should be fine...
+this is the internet of course people are going to attack you...
Oh and I agree with your thesis 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bless' timestamp='1303621904' post='5163425']
Justice = Popular Opinion.
Right and Wrong = Personal Opinion.

And they can vary on definitions based on the culture etc. Many factors...
This isn't a debate :/...
[/quote]

Yeah, I was going to say something like this. And it's definitely not a debate.

Morals are created socially so how on earth and a specific moral be "right"? Especially as these are learned through conditioning from a very early age so that society doesn't get out of a control (or threaten the power more like).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, moral dilemma time.

Say there was a train that had a freak accident and was on a collision path that would end up killing dozens of people... UNLESS you decide to derail it by pushing a bystander into the tracks. Or, what if it was the same scenario but the lives of hundreds of people were at stake while you were surrounded by children. For either case, what would you do as permitted by the laws of physics and such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AsianGuy: you're scenarios are too extreme and have a low chance of happening. Try something simpler.

A guy hasn't had food for too long. One more day without anything and he'll die. He sees that somebody's left an unattended loaf of bread. Should he steal it and survive? Or should he do the "morally correct" thing and ignore it, essentially commiting suicide?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I'd jump in the tracks on my own. [/quote]
I've considererd doing that too. It's the only solution with the least source of possible conflict because the man who's standing next to you would obviously be aware of this too, and I don't think he'd be so willing to give up his own life like that. The thing is, if someone was truly faced with a moral dilemma of such a calibre, would they really do what's noble or act in the interests of self-preservation?

[quote]@AsianGuy: you're scenarios are too extreme and have a low chance of happening. Try something simpler.

A guy hasn't had food for too long. One more day without anything and he'll die. He sees that somebody's left an unattended loaf of bread. Should he steal it and survive? Or should he do the "morally correct" thing and ignore it, essentially commiting suicide? [/quote]

True, but I didn't come up with the scenarios. A guy named Erickson if I remember correctly developed them for his theory of moral development. I still believe they're interesting because it's these moral extremes under which classical conventions of right and wrong break down. Your scenario is interesting, but the general assumption society holds is that if it's on the streets, it's a free for all unless it's something of actual worth (typically 20 dollars or more). Besides, a guy can always beg for food and the odds of someone giving a dying man food is actually quite high.

Here's another one:

Your wife is dying from a disease, but the only known cure is extremely expensive and only synthesized in laboratories. It just happens that you live next to someone who has a sample of the cure, but he's only willing to auction it for a large sum of money way beyond your current capacity. How would you respond?

[quote]What defines right from wrong?
Well I'll tell you what/who... relegion. Wether its God, Buddah, or aeithiest big-bang. [/quote]
Depends on your conception of right or wrong. Needless to say, a lot of conflict has stemmed from differing perspectives on what constitutes right or wrong because not everyone has the same mindset, even in religion. It's one the main reasons there are so many different factions/denominations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not a simple law. Morality is what people around you consider right or wrong, and you have to go with them most of the time. Nowadays, many things are wrong that people from, like, 3000 years ago would consider everyday life. Examples include ancient Egyptians and the Roman Empire. Study history, you'll find what I'm talking about. In a smaller scope, most people could not imagine life without eating meat, but there are many vegetarians that beleive eating meat is wrong. But, that doesn't mean everybody has to be like them. In conclusion, morality has things that are clearly right and wrong, like helping people is right and murduring innocents is wrong. But there is always gray area, like the example about vegetarianism, that are beleif-based and do not reflect the values of society, which can change over time, like the thing about the Romans and Egyptians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Wang Fire' timestamp='1305170421' post='5204215']
What defines right from wrong?
Well I'll tell you what/who... relegion. Wether its God, Buddah, or aeithiest big-bang.
[/quote]
The big bang doesn't tell me the difference between right and wrong.

It's a socially conditioned response with a degree of evolutionary background.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Right and wrong don't formally exist, it is the extension of self and society that jaudges. What people need to understand is to be able to tell the differenc of what they believe and what they were taught. Society has a standard registered by codes and laws as to what is right and what is wrong, these rules are less morally driven and more control driven so their value is low to a means of honest answer. People have eyes and minds and they can process this them self. Is killing wrong? Ask your self! Do you find it offensive and horrid? Do you find it acceptable under certain conditions? Do you think killing is natural and thus not a big deal if justified somewhat? "It is easy for man in the world to follow the world's opinion" That may not be exact and I can't remember who said it but it rings true. Ask yourself for your own morality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The ideas that things are right and wrong are not instinctive or primal, but learned and picked up from your upbringing and your teachings. Take for example, a child raised in the confines of a cult that believes ritual sacrifice and the killing of strangers is "right" would be confused when he's tossed in jail in the outside world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a degree, people have an instinctive understanding of right and wrong. If your uncivilized tribe is attacked by another tribe and someone you're emotionally attached to is killed, you naturally know that what they've done is wrong because of it negatively impacting you. Views on things like sexual orientation or nudity are acquired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

"Right" and "wrong" are both terms that vary by user. I believe that there is always a risk/reward thing when it comes to morals.
In my instincts, if I could steal something worth $40, instead of buying it for $40, my instincts would tell me I should.
However, my morals tell me that stealing is wrong.

This can be applied to anything. And the root of such is greed. I think greed is the only determination of right and wrong instinctively. Morals then decide whether your instincts was right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...