What do you consider: Right/Wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

What do you consider: Right/Wrong?
And, What do you think society as a whole would consider Right/Wrong?
and why?

*Shrugs*

To cut a long answer short (I can't find my incredibly long, rambling paper on right/wrong- and that's a good thing too xDD), I suppose it's subjective if we remove the possibility of God or a similar rule maker, but in a society right and wrong can change depending or norms, values, ideals etc. (but a lot of supposed changes can be merely re framing).

They are subjective to the individual ultimately but obviously a collective subjectivity can form the basis for 'rights and wrong', and I suppose that'd be good from an evolutionary point of view too. Of course, in a society subjective feelings can be forced on others (or coerced/socialised) making them seemingly objective within a society (or perhaps that is even is the case if we allow the majority the place of a rule maker? But that depends on whether or not to accept them, and since society is mutable- why should we?). I don't think acts of 'right and wrong' are nec. selfish on an emotive level but the product of indifferent genes, which can be a different thing all together, and that can work within a group as well as on an individual basis; but I don't think that it matters- ultimately it doesn't change what right and wrong actions are, only how some individuals view them, but I believe that a lot of individuals pick and choose their interpretations of the concept of right and wrong to suit them regardless- because they are very vague concepts. A lot of people argue that something may be wrong because it goes against evolution- like a contemporary absolutism IMOP- but the process of evolution has no goal, even if we ourselves have free will to form our own goals.

edit: Of course right and wrong within a definition- within what can be er, analytical or truly factual is pretty straight forward as long as you play by the rules. xD I just assumed that wouldn't need answering but I want to acknowledge anyway. But yeah, I suppose perception plays a role too...

So, yeah, it's another case of the concepts being trapped within our own language- because there is no objective definition on right and wrong (excluding the meaning of the words as opposed to the concept). And the sentence just before this one is the only part of the text that I don't suspect may be utter ****. Anyone want to tell me how I'm wrong, wrong, wrong? Ugh... I'm no intellectual, although I seem to fancy myself one at times.

Well, here's a good example ...

My Rule
If something is shown on TV overseas but we don't get it here in Australia, then it's ok to torrent it.

When it gets released here on DVD though, you have to either buy it or throw your torrented files away.


Society's Rule
Torrenting is always naughty.

If the sum of gain is larger than the sum of loss, it's good.
By that, I do not mean X amount of things, but points. If thingA gives you 10 points, and thingB gives 4, then A is better. If you have three Bs, and one A, B is better.

Same thought here. Morality should be about efficiency. By the same logic, if someone needs money more then I do, they should have it, so I give it to them (my logic for charity).

That's communism and it doesn't work.

Reason: John needs the money more than I do because he can't be bothered working. (I know that not everyone is like this but many are).

I see that John doesn't need to work because everything is free for him. Similarly, I'm sick of working my butt off doing 12 hours a day (which I often do) only to have my money taken away from me. (which Tax already does - though not as much as you're suggesting). I get no rewards for my hard work... so I stop working hard.

The economy collapses.

but then, would not BOTH A and B together be better then just A or B by and for them selves?

Things not sustainable for most people and life on earth on a long term basis are wrong.

Actually, it's not communinsm, it's utilitarianism or pragmatism. I've never been sure what the specific difference is between utilitarianism and pragmatism. My philosophy profsesors always said that the only difference was that Brits were utilitarians and Americans were pragmatists.

Anyway, I believe that a moral code must necessarily proceed from a systematic philosophy and/or theology. You cannot just "create" a moral code in a void. You have to have at least metaphysics (in the proper sense of the word) to define just what you think the universe is, whta human nature is, and how human beings should properly relate to each other and their universe.

I personally find it very disturbing when people confuse communism with any form of utilitarianism... and socialiasm for that matter. xD

For me, wrong is anything that causes more suffering than joy. And more harm than good.

Stealing causes suffering in those you steal from. Murder, violence, psychological abuses... It's a pretty good rule for me.

I've told this to a few people and they always say "waht about something like surgery? That can cause suffering, but without it you'll die!"

Some people are just dumb.

Same here.

I'm quite keen on utillitarianism. It suits me somewhat- I know it's flawed and impracticle but I do like it. I do wish people would stop telling me that I want the world to end because I like the negative form also. I'm no expert on philosopy but it doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to fall for that one- it's a very flawed criticism.

Well, politics isn't my strong point ... and it still wouldn't work. Unfortunately human nature isn't kind.

Yeah, shame. I never thought the idea in itself was bad- but it'll be corrupted by human nature- it has been corrupted by human nature. People just aren't selfless enough or trusting enough (and so obviously- who can blame them?).

It seems like everyone is piling on you for that response so I will add one more While the the initial premise is largely impractical, you're going to see something in a slightly similar vein implemented with the incoming US administration, i.e. wealth redistribution. Although it won't be anything more radical than rescinding tax cuts to the wealthy minority, I personally don't think any one person needs more than, say, 50 million dollars.

By the way, do you think government bailouts of banks is communist?

Communism does not provide an incentive to work hard or receive an education. A communist government is based on restriction of personal freedom and monetary theft by government force.