What Determines the Morality of an Action?

[rody084]

what makes an action "right"?

Hi,
I started a philosophy class today and this was the question that was discussed by the class... i think that it is a very good and interesting question... it is quite difficult to come up wiht an answer as to what makes an action "right"?

i want to see people's thoughts about this...

i think that a "right" action is one which is unselfish towards others...
this still leaves room for you to be able to do good things for yourself...but as long as they do not negatively influence others.

 

[Sikz]

That's a good definition until you get into more difficult problems...

For instance, if you can save an "innocent" person only by killing the man who intends to murder the "innocent", is it right to do so? In this case you're harming the murderer...

Or if you can save a group of "innocent" people by killing one "innocent" person, is it right? If you knew what Hitler was going to do before he did it, would it be morally correct to kill him?

As you said, a very difficult quesion...

 

[rody084]

i guess maybe then a new question has to be introduced here...

what makes a person good?

because i am thinking... maybe if i reform my previous definition to "a 'right' action is one which is unselfish towards good people"

then i think that would still make it a right action to kill one bad person to save a good one...

any other thoughts on this?

then again...also comes up the question of... what makes a person good?

 

[deda]

Newton would say...

As long as that action is simultaneous with some equal and oposite reaction it's right (or at least legal).

 

[rody084]

Originally posted by deda
As long as that action is simultaneous with some equal and oposite reaction it's right (or at least legal).

i don't quite follow what you said... could u explain it in simple terms for me please?

 

[deda]

Originally posted by rody084
i don't quite follow what you said... could u explain it in simple terms for me please?

it was more like a joke...

Newton's third law says:"For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction". i only said if the action you are talking about doesn't violate Newton III than it's right.

you might as well ignore my pervious post...

 

[rody084]

oh haha... i overlooked trying to think of it simply... i was all trying to interpret sum deeper meaning to what u said...lol

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by rody084
Hi,
I started a philosophy class today and this was the question that was discussed by the class... i think that it is a very good and interesting question... it is quite difficult to come up wiht an answer as to what makes an action "right"?

i want to see people's thoughts about this...

i think that a "right" action is one which is unselfish towards others...
this still leaves room for you to be able to do good things for yourself...but as long as they do not negatively influence others.

Right is what doesn't hurt and wrong is what does hurt. We have no other way of judging right and wrong. So the answer to your question is, it depends on the situation and the various factors you have to weigh in order to judge what will bring about the least amount of pain. Looking around at my fellow man, I see that the hardest part seems to be reasoning in the long term! It feels good now, but later... Consider the death penalty. If feels good now to take revenge on someone who did something heinous to a loved one, but you and everyone else will pay later as society is reduced to one based on revenge instead of justice (a society where the perp is kept in prison so they can't hurt someone else and especially a society oriented towards preventing evil from happening; recognizing problem children instead of processing them through the system over and over again until they do something really horrible...).

 

[himanshu121]

I don't know whether u find interest or not here it But still i provide u with the link for

GITA :http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/gita.htm

 

[olde drunk]

i come from the perspective that there is no right or wrong.

therefore, to me, all is subjective. if my action is being 'true to myself' than it can be considered as right. ironically, there are many times where you learn your greatest lessons by doing the 'wrong' thing.

i also accept the srgument that doing something 'good' for another is really selfish because it makes you feel good.

go figure,

 

[rody084]

i guess maybe there is no such thing as an unselfish action.

maybe also a "right" action is dependent on what you as an individual percieve as right...

so maybe that is the only way to define a right action... so maybe there is no universal definitino that everyone can agree to...

i was thinking for awhile that maybe if the person is "good" and their action is "right" to them then maybe it actually is a right action... but even if the person is "good" then YOU still might not agree that their action is right

 

[Dissident Dan]

The notions of right and wrong come from the notions of good and bad.

Good and bad can be defined in terms of pleasure and displeasure.

Causing displeasure or preventing pleasure is bad.

Causing pleasure or preventing displeasure is good.

Sometimes, an action can do both. That's when the complications come in.

 

[ParvinBriggs]

What makes an action right? Turn it around and ask yourself what makes an action wrong. Certainly, right is not pleasure nor wrong pain. Pleasure and pain are purely subjective experiences that arise from an individual's tastes and experiences. The funny thing is that all intelectual game playing aside, everyone has a gut instinct for right and wrong. Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

 

[Another God]

Thread moved to value theory, because it is about ethics!


And my conclusion as to what makes something 'right' is dependent on what the goal is. The right way to stop hunger, is to eat food. The right way to releive boredom is to do something interesting. To continue doing nothing even though you desire an end to your boredom would be the wrong thing to do.

Although this doesn't sound like ethics, the more indepth you think about it, ethics is nothing more than an extension of this into interpersonal dealings. The fact is, you like having people around you...I mean, you REALLY like having people around you. If you had no friends, no parents, no GF, and everyone outright ignored you, i'd almost guarantee that you would kill yourself. Isolation causes people to go crazy (without exception).

Now, with that in mind, what is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is to have people interact with you. How do you make that happen? You do things which they like to have done to them... doing those things is the 'right' thing to do... and so on.

I hope you get my drift.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by ParvinBriggs
Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

Gut instinct = That is wrong.

Analysis of it: From my perspective as someone behind the cut position: It is wrong, because it works against my getting to the front as fast as possible (It works against my goal).

From his position: It is right insofar as it gets him towards the front, but it is either wrong insofar as it goes towards making the people in the line like him. Whether he cares about that fact or not is another question. If he feels like he won't ever need their help, and he has enough friends/loved ones etc, he may decide that that element of wrongness is irrelevent.

Right and Wrong will always depend on perspective and context.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by ParvinBriggs
What makes an action right? Turn it around and ask yourself what makes an action wrong. Certainly, right is not pleasure nor wrong pain. Pleasure and pain are purely subjective experiences that arise from an individual's tastes and experiences. The funny thing is that all intelectual game playing aside, everyone has a gut instinct for right and wrong. Ask yourself what right is next time someone cuts in line at the theatre :)

I completely disagree. We all know from experience that pain is bad and pleasure is good. It doesn't matter that different things cause different people pleasure or pain. There are always certain situational circumstances.

If you take th e subjective argument, then you can use it to refute any definition of right and wrong. If you believe that killing is wrong, then I can refute it by saying that different things kill different people. While one person may survive a 20-foot fall, another would die.

The while what causes pain or pleasure is dependent upon the person and other situational factors, the existence of pain and pleasure are completely objective.

 

[full-time-climb]

Good and bad could be defined as: Value statements as defined by your current beliefs.

Right and wrong will also change as your beliefs change.
John

 

[FZ+]

Yes, I would tend to agree with that too, as I am more of a prescriptive moralist. Right and wrong are what you say they are, and in many cases attempts to rationalise them are rather misguided. There is certainly no universal absolute morality, though there is a general consensus as to a moral code, and thanks to social evolution that is aided usually by simple practicality.

 

[Magna1]

Numbers

Isn't something right or wrong depending on what the majority says. And who is in power.
"Is cannibilism wrong in a Cannibilists eyes"

 

[Another God]

No. right and wrong do not depend on the majority...unlerss u ak that majority specifically

ie: as a few of us just agreed, its all dependent on who you ask and when, and what they believe. So if a majority of people believe that slavery is right, then they will tell u that it is. If you ask the minority though, they will tell you it is not right.

Who's correct? I certainly can't answer that difinitively.

 

[deda]

every action is right.

just make sure they don't get ya.

 

[Magna1]

Thats the problem then isn't it. The minority is never asked. We only care about the rich and famous. Some even say give true communism a try and you will have a larger majority housed, fed, employed, and posibly even happier.

I think that This question has to be asked with one eye closed, and answered with one ear shut.

 

[Pseudonym]

problems

I was browsing the forum, and I came across this thread. If the physical world is all there is, I see most people falling into one of two philosophies. Either each person determines right and wrong for himself, or morality is determined as a group or society.

Some of you are all for individual morality, but others see right and wrong as functions of society or evolution. It almost parallels the ancient Greeks. Epicureans lived for the moment and got what they could for themselves before they died - they did whatever they felt like. Stoics, OTOH, were very concerned with the preservation of the group.

I find problems in both views.

individual morality - If I cuss you out, it might make me feel good, but what if you don't agree? Don't push your beliefs on me. Or a step further - I kill you, obeying my religion or beliefs. Is it wrong?

group morality - Nazi Germany. The horrific extermination of the Jews was OK by German standards at that time, but most anyone now would agree that it was fundamentally wrong. Why?

Both theories break apart in practice. There must be an outside source for morality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The first great piece of western literature, the Iliad, has exactly that dichotomy for its theme. The Greeks were all for individuality, so Patroclus got killed trying to do the job of his friend Achilles, who was sulking. The Trojans were all for group solidarity, so the city was destroyed because of the failure of one man, Paris. Homer is perfectly clear, through his discussion of "the gods", personified causes, that this is what is happening. It gives an illustration to the phrase "The Tragic View of Life". There are no truly good causes, or choices. As Sartre said, humans are condemned to be free.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I was browsing the forum, and I came across this thread. If the physical world is all there is, I see most people falling into one of two philosophies. Either each person determines right and wrong for himself, or morality is determined as a group or society.

I do not believe in any spiritual existence, but I do not believe in individual or group morality. The ethicality of an action is determined by the circumstances, not what someone believes.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The ethicality of an action is determined by the circumstances, not what someone believes.

I agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it right or true. There has to be an objective source for morals for the world to make sense.

However, if there is nothing we can't see, where are you getting your ethics from? Why shouldn't I go and hurt other people just for fun? There is NO REASON NOT TO, because in the long run, NOTHING MATTERS.

Without an external source for morals, life is meaningless and chaotic.

 

[FZ+]

Pseudonym: (Hmm, I had an account by the username of pseudonym once, and I used it to enter a far-right republican chat room and suggest that maybe Iraq didn't have WMDs. What happened next was predictable.)

Both theories break apart in practice. There must be an outside source for morality.

But there is a flaw in this. You cannot say that there must be an outside source - rather, the examples you give indicate the opposite. People do kill each other, and depending on the side they are heros or villains. The Commandment: Thou shalt not kill is perhaps the most disobeyed of them all, even allegedly by God himself. And as you correctly said, morality did change. Pre-war, antisemitism was rife. Post-war, antisemitism is a taboo. Group morality has indeed been very strong - one of the greatest crimes is treason.

What your statement means is that there *should* be an external source, because to you a constant moral code is more palatable. The world just doesn't have to make sense. In a way, life is meaningless and chaotic.

But I think I would disagree on that. Life is meaningless and chaotic is you try to detach from the individuals who are living their lives, looking for an universal meaning. But to each individual, life does have meaning and value, and even with a belief in an afterlife we still grant meaning to our lives regardless of the end. That is why we don't all commit suicide. Deciding whether hurting people is fun is part of this personalised, prescriptive morality.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm, I had an account by the username of pseudonym once,

Well, at least we have something in common! :P

Originally posted by FZ+
You cannot say that there must be an outside source - rather, the examples you give indicate the opposite.

Maybe I didn't phrase things correctly. My examples do not prove the existence of God. I just wanted to take the two positions as I saw them to their logical conclusion, and look at the results. If you hold to either, you must also accept that mutually exclusive beliefs are true at the same time, even so far as to say that the Holocaust was right for some people and wrong for others.

Originally posted by FZ+
People do kill each other, and depending on the side they are heros or villains.

I would say that people kill each other, and depending on the side they are perceived as heroes or villains. I can believe as much as I want to that I'm on vacation in the Bahamas, but that doesn't change anything.

Originally posted by FZ+
Right and wrong are what you say they are, and in many cases attempts to rationalise them are rather misguided. There is certainly no universal absolute morality. . .

Where do you draw the line between 'religion' and other truth? What separates beliefs about factual history from beliefs about Jesus' resurrection, for example? Either peasants stormed the Bastille or they didn't. Either Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or he didn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. What I personally believe about that event doesn't matter. If he did rise from the dead, it makes a tremendous difference in the way we should live.

I don't think it's possible to separate 'religious' truth from other truth.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it right or true. There has to be an objective source for morals for the world to make sense.

However, if there is nothing we can't see, where are you getting your ethics from? Why shouldn't I go and hurt other people just for fun? There is NO REASON NOT TO, because in the long run, NOTHING MATTERS.

Without an external source for morals, life is meaningless and chaotic.

Life is meaningless, meaning that there is no purpose for life existing. However, that is separate from there being right and wrong.

Morality is based on the existence of pleasure and displeasure. These are outside things, that we all know exist through experiencing them. We know that pleasure is good and displeasure is bad.

 

[Pseudonym]

Dan, would it be OK for me to hurt someone, then, as long as it makes me feel good? If nothing I do has lasting consequences, is my own pleasure all that I am living for?

You seem to be arguing for a system of morals that is based on emotions. Pleasure and displeasure are not unchanging or even objective, as you say. They are the results of various competing emotions, and vary from person to person and change over time. A masochist might take a kind of pleasure in physically hurting himself.

If morals are not constant, then no action can be considered wrong. If no action is wrong, then the Spanish Inquisition was good, slavery was right, and child abuse is fine.

 

[FZ+]

Maybe I didn't phrase things correctly. My examples do not prove the existence of God. I just wanted to take the two positions as I saw them to their logical conclusion, and look at the results. If you hold to either, you must also accept that mutually exclusive beliefs are true at the same time, even so far as to say that the Holocaust was right for some people and wrong for others.

Exactly. That is the essence of it. Morality, if prescriptive, is relative. And because through history, morality has been based on the relative views of each population, your examples suggest that this sort of morality is most used in the world, and hence perhaps most likely to be correct.

I would say that people kill each other, and depending on the side they are perceived as heroes or villains. I can believe as much as I want to that I'm on vacation in the Bahamas, but that doesn't change anything.

I hold that there is nothing beyond the limits of perception, for such concepts would be useless - how would you judge, for example, if a certain individual's perception is true, or just a false perception, but to use your own flawed perception? IMHO, all consistent moral systems are equally valid, and equally invalid. But you still reserve the right to your individual sense, and the right to act on it.

Where do you draw the line between 'religion' and other truth?

I draw the line here by putting religion as that which is neccessarily a priori, and impossible to prove or disprove. If Jesus did rise from the dead - (though many apologetics seek to make this an essentially unprovable claim), it tells us Jesus can rise from the dead as a matter of fact. The interpretation of it as a possibility of divine forgiveness is one that is dependent on perception, and irrational feeling. As an example, even if Jesus was to offer you eternal paradise in return for obedience, there is always the moral choice of whether it is worth it.

 

[Another God]

I still finding it a little shocking how much trouble people have grasping the issue of 'right and wrong'. It seems so glaringly obvious to me now that I feel like everyone should get it. but the fact seems to be that the vast majority really don't.

This is comforting in at least one regard though: It gives me scope for writting that book one day.

 

[jammieg]

An action is right if it is the action that leads to the greater good compared to all other actions designed to solve a problem, of course finding the most right action is a big headache so it's easier to go along with whatever everyone else does and there is no clear right or wrong in that there is various wrong in everything and degrees of right in everything. Or if you don't want that confusion follow the golden rule, but this is all my own personal dilemma with it.

And the "greater good" I agree with Dan that it's probably a genetic hardwiring saying that getting killed is bad and probably killing others for no good reason is bad, and having lots of pleasure and stimulation is good.
...and well basically if we all thoroughly enjoyed killing each other no one would be around to argue about it.

What is right is better for me:
Society's majority typically determine what is moral or not and it doesn't really seem to matter what is really right or wrong but depends on which side of the fence one is on and so a lot of mistakes are made here, I agree with that, and the reason is because this is what has happened over and over throughout history, everyone is out for what they can get although most of us learn early to have empathy, and all that's needed to justify taking from others is for enough people to be convinced that they take unfairly from us in some way as the Jews were dominating the business industry of Germany, and when enough people think something is true then for practical purposes it is. Hate arises out of a perceived vulnerability, wether real or imagined, and anything can be viewed as a possible enemy out of one's control, or likewise as a challenge to circumvent.

Hitler's rage:
All the noble people under Hitler's rule would stand up for what is right and be put down by a bullet to be replaced by someone who didn't care but for themselves, or someone too smart or too afraid to do anything about it under a large pyramid of power in which the misinformed soldier at the bottom was told only what they needed to know to pull the trigger and be a hero or be executed and be a traitor or sympathizer and never ever remembered for anything but disgrace. If Nazi Germany had won then they would all be remembered as heroes with many statues and there would be little doubt that they did the necessary more moral thing for the time by uniting the world under one rule, we would probably even have a pledge of allegiance to Nazism. What would happen if a soldier could leave their army at any time without penalty if they didn't believe in what they were fighting for? Would they have stayed under Hitler's army or in Vietnam?


Where it may start:
"recognizing problem children instead of processing them through the system over and over again until they do something really horrible."

I agree with that as the likely source of the problem and guess that typically it's problem children raised by troubled adults or one adult or less intensely by ordinary adults and they seem to have to carry throughout their lives a kind of deep rebelliousness and looking for something to attack like a fearless and ferocious good hunter they are, yet there is little left to hunt in this modern day world on any base level but they can't be told what to do also.
Given they have no fear of the negative, less stimulation is a better deterent, but there is a million year old child raising handbook working against that understanding...actually positive stimulation and explaining things would probably be better.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Dan, would it be OK for me to hurt someone, then, as long as it makes me feel good? If nothing I do has lasting consequences, is my own pleasure all that I am living for?

Many people have misunderstood my using feelings as the basis for morality. I do not mean that following your feelings is the right course of action. I never said any such thing. All I'm saying is that the existence of feelings it the basis. If all was rocks, then the idea of morality would not apply. There could be no harm done.

Who said that nothing you do has lasting consequences? Certainly not I. Everything has consequences that last as long as there are different things to interact in the same system as your action took place.

You seem to be arguing for a system of morals that is based on emotions. Pleasure and displeasure are not unchanging or even objective, as you say. They are the results of various competing emotions, and vary from person to person and change over time. A masochist might take a kind of pleasure in physically hurting himself.

The fact that different people feel pleasure and displeasure it response to different stimuli does not refute my argument. If you wanted to take that "refutation" to its logical extension, then nothing could ever be wrong. For example, take killing: What could kill one person would not kill another person. Therefore killing can't be wrong because it depends on the person (you might call it subjective).

But that argument does not stand. The fact that different stimuli cause pleasure or displeasure in different people just add to the conditions of the situation and change the criteria for what is right and wrong.

In the case of maschism, it seems the the person gains more pleasure than displeasure out of the action. All the incident really points to is that one action can cause both pleasure and displeasure (or prevent pleasure or displeasure). That fact is really the one fact that causes moral dilemmas. But just because things can be hard to figure out does not mean that there are not wrong or right actions.

 

[p-brane]

If an action is wrong it is made right by the mechanics of the physics of this universe. Judging every action is tedious. The police and the lawmakers have a tough job with that. There are tons of records of what consitutes right and wrong among people but I have a feeling they only scratch the surface of the physics involved.

I'm not saying anything new or religious or spiritual. Its just the way things are observed to work. If you take the time to notice. We tend to mimic the actions in the universe. Life, for instance, is a process of growth and abundance. This is deemed correct and "right" because it is nature's process. Sure there is death and destruction in life but the overall outcome is a forward motion that promotes life as a growth phenomenon. When actions and events fly in the face of that particular process of the universe, it just gets better at growth and the evolutionary process.

As Newton said, each action creates an equal and opposite reaction. As the Wiccan say, each action is reflected x 10 in response to the actor. There are many such wisdoms that pertain to right and wrong. However, left in the hands of all creation, minus all the judgements -its all good, conclusively speaking.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane

As Newton said, each action creates an equal and opposite reaction. As the Wiccan say, each action is reflected x 10 in response to the actor. There are many such wisdoms that pertain to right and wrong. However, left in the hands of all creation, minus all the judgements -its all good, conclusively speaking.

Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

Nature is right in that it has offered the means by which we are able to suffer, not suffer or/and experience a billion other conditions aside from suffering.

The reason I use Newton and the Wiccan's statements is to show the variations of views involved when it comes to judging and studying actions in general.

What makes nature right? My own decision on the matter. How you veiw nature is your business. However, like I said, you wouldn't have an opinion on the matter without relying on Nature. In my opinion, she deserves some credit in this regard.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

Your "prejudice" concerning nature is duely noted and just as duely discarded. Not because it is abrasive but because it doesn't jive, in any way whatsoever, with my own conclusions on the subject.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

 

[MacTech]

what makes an action "right"?

Simple answer is.. of course.. if Say it is right.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

I didn't say your prejudice is wrong. I said it doesn't jibe with my own.

A Philips screwdriver is no more wrong than a Robertson screwdriver, 'til you happen upon a screw that requires a flathead screwdriver. Then both the philips and the robertson are wrong.

Someone could say its wrong to have so many different types of screws and screwdrivers. But its right for the makers of this variety because they are able to sell their different screws and their different screwdrivers that match, much to the mechanics shigrin. Then, there are mechanics and carpenters who prefer one over another. That's when one persons preference is right for that person and so on.

One's gender-specific sexual orientation is a similar kettle of fish.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering."

(Dissident Dan)

One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding.

Thanks to nature, one could say or do anything "one" feels like saying or doing.

But, as nature would have it, what one does or says will inevitably bring about a consequence that is equal to, or greater than, one's initial and/or repeated action.

That's just the way it is. There's no escaping it. So watch your step. The last one's a doozy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

In what way is nature irrelevant if it can be used to justify everything? My prejudice is to find nature relevant in both relativistic and quantum settings. It could be viewed as a major component of the unification theory. It supercedes quantum gravity in that respect. But I'm off topci.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me. [/B]

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

 

[MushinMunen]

I think that the reason that this question may be difficult is because every individual and every state, nation, and continent on which they live has a different definition of what is "right", when there really is no definition for "right" or "correct" or "moral". That will never be accepted as true but it is a fact. Only in this world could a question like that emerge. If you didn't think "right & wrong" (which is difficult to imagine for some because that's the way the world works) there would never be any second guessing and there would never be any accidents. There would also be no testing It is my opinion that "right & wrong" is uneccessary and everything would be much better without it. An entire race of philosophers...sounds lovely doesn't it? Hehe.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

Now, that's where I completely disagree with you. There are objectively unethical actions. The mere existence of experience mandates this.

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist. According to that reasoning, nothing can exist, because there is always someone to disagree with you on any issue. According that reasoning, there can be no origin of man, because people disagree on that. etc. ad inifinitum

 

[FZ+]

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist.

This needs a correction - they must not exist, AND be apparent. History suggests that moral principles are essentially inherited from ones society, and as each member of the society can declare their own to be natural absolute, it does not make sense that there is a single, distinguishible concept of good out there. And if there has been found no way to choose between true morals and false morals, then the idea of absolute morality is useless. Things can exist, and theories can be classified as good or not because we have axiomatically assumed methods for discriminating between them. In morality, we lack that.