What makes an action right ?

  • Thread starter rody084
  • Start date
In summary, an action is right if it is unselfish and does not hurt others. It is difficult to determine what makes an action right, as there is no universal definition. It is up to the individual to determine what they believe is right.
  • #71
I just watched schindler's list.

If you haven't seen it, well...oscar wasn't saving jews (at the start) for the right reasons. He was saving them because he wanted cheap labor. He said it himself, he just wanted to get rich

He was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean his actions were wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
There is a difference between standing up for what is right to conform with morality and standing up for what's right, for the wrong reasons.

I believe "right" for whatever subjective worth it has, has a true value. If you do not do the "right" thing for the "right" reasons, it ceases to be right. Also, if you had people merely doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason, there would be negative consequences for society in the long run. For one, no one would pull their weight in the name of good will, they would only do it for the sake of personal convenience. That sort of fabric does not hold up as well as the fabric of good will.
 
  • #73
p-brane said:
I'll let SelfAdjoint have a go at responding to my comment.

If you "fail to see" what I'm pointing out to SelfAdjoint about "interaction" then please specify exactly what it is that you are not grasping in the proposition and I will attempt to clairify those point(s)for you, Dissident Dan.

SelfAdjoint was asking his question about people interacting in reference to the "to each their own" comment. You did not address that. In addition, we are talking about ought, and you merely gave a potential explanation of is.
 
  • #74
Dissident Dan said:
SelfAdjoint was asking his question about people interacting in reference to the "to each their own" comment. You did not address that. In addition, we are talking about ought, and you merely gave a potential explanation of is.

For starters, I don't remember talking about "ought". What are you referring to here, please?

I'll return at a later time concerning interaction.
 
  • #75
You gave a prescription for how people should ("ought to") act: "To each their own" (non-interference).
 
  • #76
Dissident Dan said:
You gave a prescription for how people should ("ought to") act: "To each their own" (non-interference).

Here's what I said:

Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that. Many many people know nothing but suffering. It has become a way of life that is passed on to suicide bombers and militants alike.

If they didn't suffer in some way every day they'd think something was wrong.

Similarily, there are those who would think things were amiss if they didn't get to have a warm bath or eat a chocolate bar every day.

For those who are conditioned to suffering, the bath and the bar would signify suffering.

The terror of a tank in the neighborhood would be welcome since it suggests they're getting their daily dose of suffering.

Go figure.

No should have woulda could have or oughtas about it!
These are simple observations with regard to subjectivity.

When it comes to interaction I am interested. I hypothesize that all interactions... although appearing as entanglements and crosshybrids of thought and action... they are actually parallel in nature.

I put forth that interactions remain parallel because the points of view remain separate by varying experience and understanding and because any amount of interaction is interpreted by that point of view held by one or the other participant in the interaction.

Therefore, "to each his/her own" tastes, experiences and thoughts etc... is not only a statement born out of an observation of subjectivity but also states what I am saying about the parallel nature of relationship and interaction.

Just a thought.
 
  • #77
The terror of a tank in the neighborhood would be welcome since it suggests they're getting their daily dose of suffering.

How factual is that? Who welcomes suffering?
 
  • #78
SquareItSalamander said:
How factual is that? Who welcomes suffering?

One person's suffering is another's pleasure or sense of accomplishment. It depends on up-bringing and conditioning.
 
  • #79
What do you mean by stating, "To each his own"? Do you mean to say that you support using that as a guideline for action (or inaction)?
 
  • #80
Dissident Dan said:
What do you mean by stating, "To each his own"? Do you mean to say that you support using that as a guideline for action (or inaction)?

When I used the words "to each (their)own" I used them to fully illustrate the use of the words I used before that phrase: which were: "Its relative"... more accurately this is what I said:

Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that.

If I had put quotations around the "To each their own" that may have been clearer. So, my intention, in using the phrase, was to illustrate the condition of SUBJECTIVITY. It was not a sermon about ethical axioms.
 
  • #81
"What makes an action 'right'"?

When its not left.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
451
Replies
15
Views
587
Replies
14
Views
455
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
944
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
786
Back
Top