Can there be a definite line between right and wrong?

[DaveC426913]

I don't think you can ever get around the moral right being relative to each individual.

Killing people is wrong in theory, but it depends on the point of view.

What if someone was harming another person and your only recourse was to kill the attacker. Some might consider this wrong on principle, but others would not.

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

I think that generally killing is undesirable. You can seen many instances throughout history where groups of people apparently overcame the stigma and killed millions of people. These killers would have argued they were in the right.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's relative to the individual. I'd say it's relative to the society. Right and wrong are a consensus of the society as a whole.

 

[vectorcube]

Yes, I get it. I got it before you explained it. It's a common argument in ethics (though you've shaped it very badly, I must say). I just don't happen to agree with the argument.

As long as i am right...

 

[vectorcube]

I don't think you can ever get around the moral right being relative to each individual.

Killing people is wrong in theory, but it depends on the point of view.

What if someone was harming another person and your only recourse was to kill the attacker. Some might consider this wrong on principle, but others would not.

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

I think that generally killing is undesirable. You can seen many instances throughout history where groups of people apparently overcame the stigma and killed millions of people. These killers would have argued they were in the right.

Well, you can think about an act that is right becaue everyone else does, or there are some acts that is intrinsically right, and you do what is intrinsically right. In anycase.

 

[vectorcube]

It wasn't always wrong. When survival was tribe-based, there were definitely friends and enemies. I cannot swallow the idea that - in a time when there were no alternativees like there are today - killing an enemy that's jeopardizing your tribe's survival was wrong.

If you find it hard to understand, then instead of "killing people". Try "killing babies".

 

[vectorcube]

No. I feel bad. Read my post.

Read my post, I did it because I think it's right, but made me feel bad.

I don't think you read my post, because your reply had nothing to do with it.

But maybe English isn't your first language, so you can't comprehend. Let me know if I need to state what I said in an easier to understand way.

honey, I honestly don` t know what is so complicated about your view at all. Your view is rather simple if anything. You don` t think so? I am pretty sure it is rather simple. It is really about how an agent feels about an certain act, and if this agent feels good about it, then this agent act upon it. Am i right?

But maybe English isn't your first language, so you can't comprehend. Let me know if I need to state what I said in an easier to understand way.

Hmm... I am sure it is really complicated and profound.

 

[vectorcube]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's relative to the individual. I'd say it's relative to the society. Right and wrong are a consensus of the society as a whole.

..But it is wrong, and I don` t think you really want morality to be just a consensus. If everyone thinks that jumping off a building is a good idea, then jumping off a building is a good idea by common consensus. Intuitively, there is some wrong about it. Why? Because jumping off a building is rather stupid, and it is a bad idea.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you find it hard to understand, then instead of "killing people". Try "killing babies".

I respect a woman's right to choose.

 

[Pythagorean]

..But it is wrong, and I don` t think you really want morality to be just a consensus. If everyone thinks that jumping off a building is a good idea, then jumping off a building is a good idea by common consensus. Intuitively, there is some wrong about it. Why? Because jumping off a building is rather stupid, and it is a bad idea.

I don't want morality to be a consensus, but it is... I have to behave as society demands or I go to jail. In the case of killing people, this is fine, I don't need to kill people, but I shouldn't have to follow all of societies rules just because I'm a minority (not ethnically, but politically). I don't even like the idea of democracy because of this. Democracy isn't freedom. It's freedom for the majority.

 

[vectorcube]

I respect a woman's right to choose.

And i respect the right of the baby to not get murder.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Imagine you're the president of the US (or whatever suitable country you pick). You get a phone call that a mad scientist has injected a baby with a deadly disease that, once it incubates in the baby, will spread and kill everyone in the world, with the sole exception of the baby. They want your authorization to kill this baby.

Do you say no?

Obviously this is a contrived example, but picking 'baby killing' as proof that value statements are objective is fairly contrived in and of itself

 

[vectorcube]

I don't want morality to be a consensus, but it is... I have to behave as society demands or I go to jail. In the case of killing people, this is fine, I don't need to kill people, but I shouldn't have to follow all of societies rules just because I'm a minority (not ethnically, but politically). I don't even like the idea of democracy because of this. Democracy isn't freedom. It's freedom for the majority.

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

Tomorrow, if everyone around in the country started to killing jews & asians. I would say "it is wrong", and you want to say "it is wrong" as well. You want to say certain act is wrong not because everyone else thinks it is wrong, but because the act of kill innocent jews& asians is intrinsically wrong.

 

[Pythagorean]

Imagine you're the president of the US (or whatever suitable country you pick). You get a phone call that a mad scientist has injected a baby with a deadly disease that, once it incubates in the baby, will spread and kill everyone in the world, with the sole exception of the baby. They want your authorization to kill this baby.

Do you say no?

Obviously this is a contrived example, but picking 'baby killing' as proof that value statements are objective is fairly contrived in and of itself

yup, bye-bye baby, unless its mine of course, then you have to kill me to get to it unless i have a moment of lucidity or something

 

[seycyrus]

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

You are trying to argue absolute right/wrong which is absolutely irrelevant to the real world.

It is necessary to realize that some things are more wrong than others.

 

[Pattonias]

How do you define right?

Is it what makes you feel good on the inside?
Is it the best decision based on the given information?
Is it what society deems to be the right thing to do?
Is it an action performed with benevolent intent?

If you try to claim that anyone or all of these things truly define right; everyone here will be able to list dozens of examples that will show that the definition is flawed. It must be a combination of the above definitions that each one of us uses to decide what is right when we make our own decisions.

Doing the truly right thing should come with a knowledge and acceptance of the consequences as you forsee them. The right thing should also be an element of the moment. You should not look back at something and behave as if the individual had the forsight to predict all possible outcomes for the decision that he or she felt was the right one.

 

[Pythagorean]

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

Tomorrow, if everyone around in the country started to killing jews & asians. I would say "it is wrong", and you want to say "it is wrong" as well. You want to say certain act is wrong not because everyone else thinks it is wrong, but because the act of kill innocent jews& asians is intrinsically wrong.

That is incorrect. I would want to say it's wrong because I feel that it's wrong. I feel very strongly that it's wrong. It's obvious you feel very strongly about it too. The difference is that I know feeling from facts.

What's wrong with subjective morality anyway? Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean it should be trivialized. Our feelings about killing are still important, despite being feelings.

I feel the same way about a meaning of life. There is no one meaning of life; it's subjective. That doesn't make it meaningless. It's not somehow "lesser" than if meaning were objective.

 

[vectorcube]

That is incorrect. I would want to say it's wrong because I feel that it's wrong. I feel very strongly that it's wrong. It's obvious you feel very strongly about it too. The difference is that I know feeling from facts.

What's wrong with subjective morality anyway? Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean it should be trivialized. Our feelings about killing are still important, despite being feelings.

I feel the same way about a meaning of life. There is no one meaning of life; it's subjective. That doesn't make it meaningless. It's not somehow "lesser" than if meaning were objective.

Look, if tomorrow, everyone started to kill asians and jews. Let say you go up to these people. You can say one of the following two things:

1. Your people should not kill asians& jews, because it is morally wrong.

or

2. Your people should stop killing the jews&asians, because i don` t feel good about killing the jews&asians.


It is not going to convince anyone if you are going to use option 2.

 

[Pythagorean]

Look, if tomorrow, everyone started to kill asians and jews. Let say you go up to these people. You can say one of the following two things:

1. Your people should not kill asians& jews, because it is morally wrong.

or

2. Your people should stop killing the jews&asians, because i don` t feel good about killing the jews&asians.


It is not going to convince anyone if you are going to use option 2.

that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. We're not discussing how to convince genocidal killers to stop killing.

Even if we were, it's not like option 1 is going to work any better than option 2. More likely, you'll have to imprison or kill them to get them to stop.

 

[WhoWee]

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

Or, what if someone is trying to kill you and you try to kill him instead, but he still kills you - should he feel good because you didn't kill him and bad because he killed you and how would you feel?

 

[vectorcube]

that's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So i guess you don` t know the traditional argument for moral realism, do you?
..

Because there is no way you would say this if you really know.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You mean moral relativism?

Your post was asking 'which of these sounds like a more convincing argument to stop a genocidal dictator', not 'which of these is more philosophically sound'. It's essentially a strawman argument

 

[vectorcube]

You mean moral relativism?

Your post was asking 'which of these sounds like a more convincing argument to stop a genocidal dictator', not 'which of these is more philosophically sound'. It's essentially a strawman argument

No. It is two alternative reasons. How is this moral relativism, anyway?

 

[vectorcube]

Well, let get these technical stuff out of the way:

Ok, moral realism is the ontological claim that there are "moral facts" that makes moral proposition true.

This proposition could be a mental representation, intention etc. For our purpose, they are all truthbearers.

To say that a proposition "P is true", is to say P is a truthbearer, and "is true" is known as a truth predicate.

According to our best theory for the assignment of truth predicated is Russell ` s explication between propositions and facts. To say that P is true is to say there exist a fact that makes P true. For our case, the "Moral facts" is what makes a moral proposition true.

Now, this technical use of "facts", "truth predicate" and propositions has a long history, and generally accepted by philosophers. The pros of this approach is the objectivity of what we mean by a proposition, namely, it `s corresponding fact. So to say that P is a proposition, or truthbearers of some sort, is to commit to the existence of a fact F, where "facts" are supposed to have some sort of mind-independent existence.

Russell theory of logical atomism is based an the relation between truthbearers, and the follow ontological claims: 1. there exist facts, 2. there exist relations between facts. With 1&2 postulated, according to russell, A proposition P that is true is suppose to refer to 1, or 2. The pros of this approach is the objectivity of what we mean by a proposition.
The con is the ontological commitment onces we accept this view about propositions, and truthbearer.



...

..
I wonder how many understand?

In case no one understand:http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/Papers/Moral%20Realism.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

So i guess you don` t know the traditional argument for moral realism, do you?
..

Because there is no way you would say this if you really know.

Now you're deriving authority from my ignorance. I've pretty much accepted that wherever you have your head stuck, you're not planning on pulling it out anytime soon, so enjoy!

 

[vectorcube]

Now you're deriving authority from my ignorance. I've pretty much accepted that wherever you have your head stuck, you're not planning on pulling it out anytime soon, so enjoy!

if you want to read something technical then post 52 might be your cup of tea.


Trust me, saying that "it is irrelevent" is not a good answer. In fact, it is central to why people go for moral realism. Realism allow you to make claims that would otherwise be subjective to individual specker. what you need to know is that with moral realism, you can make claims like "killing is wrong". Is this authority? yes! I am telling you this is the view, and you can go fact check it by read a book, journal or taking a course.

 

[Pattonias]

I think the problem is that if we all stand here and say that "this action is morally wrong," we will always be able to find at least one person who wholeheartedly disagrees.

Would that principle (if it could be tested) prove that there can be no definite line between right and wrong?

 

[vectorcube]

I think the problem is that if we all stand here and say that "this action is morally wrong," we will always be able to find at least one person who wholeheartedly disagrees.

Doesn't that fact prove that there can be no definite line between right and wrong.

No.

Take the case of John, John might not know how to prove fermat` s theorm, and he might reasonably think fermat` s theorm is falses. John would be holding a false belief, because fermat` s theorm is actually true.

 

[Pattonias]

No.

Take the case of John, John might not know how to prove fermat` s theorm, and he might reasonably think fermat` s theorm is falses. John would be holding a false belief, because fermat` s theorm is actually true.

We are still comparing two different things. The moral right to the scientific/mathematical right.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of the moral right, but I will do so here.

Perhaps it should be said that there can be a clear line scienfically.
Ex. A Scientific Law

There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?

 

[vectorcube]

We are still comparing two different things. The moral right to the scientific/mathematical right.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of the moral right, but I will do so here.

Perhaps it should be said that there can be a clear line scienfically.
Ex. A Scientific Law

There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?

I am telling you what moral realism implies. I am not telling you two difference things, or if it is scientifically right or not.

I say it again. I moral fact is what assigns the truth predicate to a moral proposition.

There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?

Like i said before. The fact that john does not know a fact does not imply this fact do not exist.He might just be too stupid.

 

[seycyrus]

...
I wonder how many understand?...

Buddy, all you do is claim that everyone who disagrees with you, doesn't understand.

What are you really proposing anyway besides throwing down some irrelevant-to-the-real-world philosophy?

Show me how your philosophy provides the correct solution to a real world dilemma.

 

[Enidox]

Oh this is a "fun" one.

See, I'm a diagnosed Sociopath, as well as having Schizophrenia (fun times, I know). Now I'm not just saying/posting this to seem "dark and cool" or whatever else you might throw up as a reason for my being untruthful on the matter, but for me "right" and "wrong" are things that, while I usually understand why it is seen that way by modern society, I cannot see the logical reasoning for many actions being condemned and others praised. Tattoos and piercings are a great example.

Historically, a "gauged" ear piercing meant you were a captured slave-as they would put a chain through everybody's new ear holes-and tattoos were simply a way of identifying you as someone or something.

Now, in modern western society a tattooed or pierced individual (not counting female lobe piercings) is seen as a social deviant and for some reason a terrible stigma is attached to those simply trying to express themselves through artwork. I personally have a good number of tattoos (my most seen one being DILLIGAF across my fingers) and piercings, but have yet to understand why I am looked at like some kind of second class citizen because I choose to tell my life's story with ink and metal.

One that gets a lot of questions is the rosary made of a thorned vine I have going from each elbow down to my hands and a small rose is blooming on different points of the thorned vine. I explain it means several things, one is that religion has become a thorn in our sides and is now a perverted form of what it once was, the other is that every rose symbolizes someone important to me that has died. My most commented on one (as well as my first) is the one across my throat-goes right around the bottom near my collar bone-that reads "LOVELESS" as though it was carved in. I got this one because most of the days I wake up I feel like throwing myself off of a bridge and have never really known what love feels like and for that matter I probably never will. One that I'm sure get's stared at, but no one ever asks about is on the back of my neck, a simple bit of knot art done in Aleister Crowley's now infamous geometric symbol-I apologize for not being able to remember the name of it at the moment. I have that one coloured in my family's tartan and it is actually my most expensive one, not to mention it took nearly a year to finish and actually hurt worse than the one on my throat. Go figure on that one.

So no, I don't feel you can ever draw a definite line between "right" and "wrong" as these are simply perceptions that change over time and are different depending on what part of the world your in. I feel there will be lines drawn in the proverbeal moral sand in roughly the same places on a few issues over the course of human existence, but that's about it.