Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My first post

  1. Apr 13, 2010 #1
    Intrinsic human value is not apparent to me, nor is equality--if you make those assumptions things make sense. There is a lot of ambiguity regarding definitions of terms. For instance, many equivocate between moral and rational wrongs. What value do other people have other than what I assign them?

    Rational rights and wrongs are relative to a person's internal hierarchy of wants and needs. How is it wrong rationally for someone to steal if they hold no value in the other person's life and great value in money? Assuming they know they can get away with it with a reasonable amount of certainty.

    The terms are equivocated between the moral sense and rational sense. Anyone can label any action as "wrong" or "right" like they could with any color. But what we base decisions on is rationalism, what is rational in the sense Descartes used it, which is relative to a person's internal hierarchy of wants and needs. This means murder, rape and theft are not absolutely wrong.


    Some would say the situations I've outlined above regarding murder, rape and theft are wrong because if everyone did it there'd be no society. If every person had a slave that wouldn't work either, nor would it make the world a better place, but that doesn't really deal with the issue of whether there is a right or wrong about it in an amoral construct, or on a singular level. What is good for the many is not necessarily good for the few, nonetheless for the individual. That is the fundamental error in this view.

    The jungle that is life has checks and balances surely and if there were no logical basis for riding off the expense of another we wouldn't be carnivores, from a purely analytic or scientific perspective. We are all faced with special situations in our daily lives where an injustice can benefit us with no expense to our quality of life. Therefore, I now argue the right or wrong aspect of it transends our current understanding of nature and reality.

    Everything might seem relative to us finite beings, but perhaps to the whole, to the ultimate reality from which we are contingent on, there is greater truth: true eternal or absolute truth. Essentially only when looking at the whole (the bigger picture) can we judge this accurately, but since our nature is finite and contingent our peceptions tend to be relative and we cannot perceive the greater truths of values and of right and wrong in absolute terms.
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted