There is no right and wrong. Here is my (fairly) simple "proof":
Right and wrong are based on the idea of good and evil. Pretty simple concepts, right? Things like pain, death, suffering, those are evil/wrong. Things like joy, love, nurturing, those are good/right.
But the reason there is no good/evil or right/wrong is because of perspective. People are complex, so I will give a simple animal example. You can easily find human examples with this basic idea:
For a squirrel, not being eaten by a bobcat is good. Being eaten by a bobcat is bad.
For a bobcat, not eating a squirrel is bad. Eating a squirrel is good.
Everything in this world benefits some organism or system, and is detrimental to some other organism or system. It's the balance of life.
The Yang-Yang symbol. It shows there is a little bit of light in the darkness, and a bit of darkness in the light. They are inseparable. Even light and dark, are they good or bad? Light is bad for some organisms that thrive in the dark and die in the light, and vice versa for other organisms.
Humans place "right and wrong" on things, but who are humans? Just more animals on the planet. And the universe is so vast, it doesn't have a "right and wrong". It doesn't care if the humans are all holding hands and singing songs, or if they are ripping each other's throats out. Planets keep spinning, universe keeps expanding, everything goes on and the universe doesn't shed a tear.
You can make your own right and wrong, and you might as well, since you're a human. I think the best choices will be made once you have the most information, and even better choices if you get more information and adjust your choices accordingly. But then again, that's just my subjective human opinion.
Fair enough. But by that criteria, did Hitler do nothing wrong, then? Simply objectionable to us?
@LilyoftheLake Absolutely. Consider Hitler from the perspective of the squirrel. Was the squirrel negatively impacted? Not really, therefore no wrong was done.
Humans often go by "what feels right". But Hitler was human and he did what "felt right" and caused a lot of suffering. He also did not act alone, and millions of Germans, Japanese, and Italians acted alongside him. A large portion of the human population, in fact. Including some people in Allied countries like USA, England, and France, who supported the Nazis.
The Hitler example is a rabbit hole, which raises the question "what if Hitler had won?" Would all our values and morals be different? Likely so. Phillip K. Dick explores this in "The Man in the High Castle", though even his novel is colored with modern (anti-nazi) sentiments.
Just to be clear, I am not a nazi, supporter, or sympathizer. I am just providing an idea of what a neutral or objective view looks like (the squirrel).
It depends mostly on your philosophy.
But, generally speaking, if you have a conscience that isn’t desensitized, you will be able to intuitively feel what is right and what is wrong.
How can I believe my conscience?
It’s similar to how you trust your gut or intuition. It’s something you’ll nave to differentiate from your usual thoughts and feelings and outside influences. It’s this subtle push or pull from within you, like an internal compass of your soul. It feels like truth and wisdom from an inner voice that feels profound and you feel in your bones that it’s true. And, it’ll always sit well with you and feel right after listening to that still small voice.
Thanks for the MHO. 🙂
I follow my own set of morals and listen to others with an open mind before I make a decision I thouroughly think things through about adding or subtracting from my list. I also take in what my gut thinks is right, and how society has progressed into my thoughts.
What makes your set of morals?
I literally just explained it
Okay, okay. Your gut + thinking it through + taking into account society.
But why is that your method? What makes it so you can trust that?
Because I trust myself more than I trust other people. That's just how it's always been. People let me down so I stopped believing in them to just do the right thing and started doing things my way.
Some things like murder and rape are wrong no matter what. Actually rape is worse cause sometimes murder is justified but there’s never an excuse for raping someone. By rape I mean any form of sexual assault.
But why? What makes it so?
Just is. I mean, I think every civilized society has rules against murder and rape.
What qualifies as "civilized?"
True. I think every society on earth, or at least the great majority of them, have rules against murder and rape. This includes tribal peoples like the Yanomamo of the Amazon rainforest.
On the other hand, many (including modern China) still have infanticide and forced marriage, which is pretty close.
And those are by their very nature immoral. Wrong. Doesn’t matter how many people do them.
But what makes them wrong? How can we know?
Opinion
57Opinion
u Holy cow! Social construct? WITF is that suppose to mean except that it seems to be an excuse to disregard things that you otherwise know are right and wrong.
I'm just trying to sort things out. How can I know what is right and wrong?
"Right and wrong" come from having a sense of morality, and morals are built on some assumptions about what is good behavior and what is bad behavior. You can find those assumptions in the Bible (the ten commandments) if you want, but I am not trying to push religion on you. You can also develop an idea of the kind of person that you want to become and then decide how would that person act under various circumstances, then develop a set of rules that you want to "grow into." Finally, I think for many people, morality has a visceral component; when you see something that is wrong, you know it is wrong and you "feel it in your guts." Part of becoming a strong adult involves learning to hear and pay heed to your instincts. In all likelihood, you had a sense of morality built into you by the time you were six years old.
Actually Right and Wrong is based off what a Society has opinionated a belief to morality and suggested emotion created upon its thought.
At six our society engagement is very minimal and there are so many things that are incomprehensible to a childs mind of understanding. It is why our views on matters can shift throughout the years.
Take killing someone. In the animal kingdom it is normal part of life, but to us "Superior" civilized beings it is seen as wrong, even in self defense some people feel.
It also boils down to what is the reasoning to following or not following these moral beliefs. Stealing is wrong. I wouldn't think it was wrong if it was left to that for my family to survive. At its basics, nothing is immoral when it comes down to survival. Its a means to conceptualize order to be followed so a governing body can "manage" and gain support over vast populations.
It depends on what it's about it depends on your morals your values and your ethics if you've noticed in life we have two choices good bad right wrong yes no hello goodbye positive negative God devil love hate pain and ecstasy
About four months ago something happened to me and for probably about three or four days I I was in so much pain I could not even walk I was at the moment of passing out every second of the day and one night I was laying in bed and I said this has to be the peak this has to be the very peak of this pain and looking at it as if it was a clock 12 what is the peak of it I said there's no way in this world that I'm going to travel all the way backwards to get back at 12 release all that pain and there's that fine line is everything we do I said why not relax close your eyes meditate and just move over one second two straight up 12 and have no more pain instead of waiting and traveling All the Way backwards did you see that pain little by little I said no I just moved right over and being in pain for 3 to 4 days at this peak in that second in that instant I did this all the pages appeared my whole body could breathe I took a deep breath I could not believe it was that simple going for the peak of pain to just pure total pleasure no more pain I could not believe it I think no matter what it is hate and love there's a fine line there's a fine line between right and wrong the people can justify certain things but we all know the truth of right and wrong and yes no hello goodbye positive negative love hate we're all made different we all think different things hurt us deeper than most some of us some of us don't care we know how to handle it so I think it all depends on the individual it's just like making love you get that fine line of orgasm side or the fine line of not and if you know how to control that you can pull her over to the orgasm side and then pull her back over to the other side and take her back and forth back and forth until you build her up and she can't take it anymore there's that fine line and everything
So it falls into the idea on whether or not you believe in a higher power such as the Christian God. The idea of right and wrong comes from religion Muslims think it is wrong for women to show their face Christians believe homosexuality is wrong even atheist would say murder is wrong even though they literally have no grounds to stand on when it comes to objective truth or morality.
atheist constantly fall into the idea of moral relativism basically the idea is that morals are irrelevant if you do not believe in a higher power because if there is no such thing as a higher power then there is no such thing as morals or values and so you basically can do whatever you want why would I set aside my own pleasure for morality if I do not believe that there is some sort of higher power or God it makes no sense if you don’t know there is a God then it makes sense to believe it or at least follow the morality of some sort of religious doctrine even though you yourself don’t necessarily know whether or not that religious doctrine is correct because if you are wrong and there is an actual God and you’ve lived your life without at least you can try to slip into heaven by living your ways in the teachings of say the Christian God. If it turns out there is no of God then at least you tried to do some good in the world I fell into the agnostic category where I’m not sure if there is a God or not but I choose to live my life in credence with the idea of the Christian faith I don’t go to church right thing like that but at least I’m trying to live my life as a good person and if it turns out that there is no guard than at least I’ve tried to make the world a better place
That's... good.
Really good.
Find a notion of a higher morality and follow it - even if you can't know it's true. Because what other choice do you have?
Really none The Marquis de Sade really brought this point home. He was an atheist who would sexually torture women and concluded that since there is not god he might as well do what he pleases for his own pleasure because once he is dead that it we’re worm food. He’s the guy we get the idea of sadism from. It make sense if there is no god then there idea of right and wrong doesn’t matter. Might as well eat drink and do what we want for tomorrow we’re dead.
Simple... golden rule. Basically don't do shit to others you wouldn't want to be done to you.
The problem with that rule though... you have to have the ability to see things from another's point of view. The people that can't really do that will say "kill that baby because it's my right to kill it!" without thinking for a second... ummm, maybe the baby has rights too at this point? Maybe, just maybe?" You know what I'm talking about right? the same retards that tried to force other people to get COVID shots and wear masks against their will, are now screaming "It's my body my choice!"
But let's assume their right, and it's the woman's right! Sleep around and wait 8 months, the kid can feel pain, but let's go in there and cut him up and suck him out with a vacuum. The kid could literally be taken out via C-section and live life at that point, or she could give birth and give the kid to a foster home, but it's a woman's right! Right?
That's just one of the issues you stated... another would be the alphabet people stuff. The golden rule would state whatever you do behind closed doors is your own business. But what about when they're acting profane in front of kids or turning kids into strippers. Now you're not just fucking with kids, you're also fucking with their parents. ... I mean those are the people that think 2 people face fucking each other at a kid's bus stop is a beautiful thing... when there is no thought about the people standing there waiting for their kids that would rather not let their kids watch two people face fuck each other.
Sorry for being so long-winded with my answer.
But why does the golden rule define morality?
In reality, no, there is no objective right and wrong.
That said, there is a sort of right and wrong...
Imagine I was to design a robot so that it behaves "right" and does not do "wrong".
How would I do that?
Basically, I'd have to teach it out to recognize situations and then "do the right thing" as opposed to "do the wrong thing".
Still, how do we teach the machine what is a "right" action and what is a "wrong" action?
Furthermore, if we give it multiple right actions and multiple wrong actions, how do we teach it to select the best action?
As part of our teaching work, we need to ask ourselves if there are times when these options of right and wrong actions change or not.
For instance,
"It is wrong to kill".
That seems like a reasonable "right" ethic...
In simpler terms, "Killing is a wrong action".
But what if killing meant saving lives? For instance, killing one person who is about to kill more than one person - like a nutjob trying to kill elementary school kids.
And what about in warfare?
Suppose the robot is on the side of a country in war. Should it kill enemy soldiers? Enemy civilians?
All of this is complex and situationally dependent.
========
However, you can cut through a lot of the clutter like this...
An action is right if it universally enhances the probability of survival of the maximum number of people.
Any action that universally lowers the probability of survival of people is wrong.
If an action enhances the probability of survival of one group while, at the same time, lowering the probability of survival for another group and vice versa, then take the action that maximizes the survival of the "most ethical group".
I put "most ethical group" because that is a loaded phrase and I am not going to discuss it further.
But why does survival equal right? What makes that true?
Gotcha. I've heard similar opinions...
I need to reflect on that.
You might be thinking of Objectivism which is somewhat different.
In Objectivism, all morality is based in "rationalism" being that the only thing that matters is the self - you are ultimately responsible for your life and no one else is or should be (and that includes your parents and kids!). Your survival and happiness is based on your actions. So, selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a sin.
The difference between them and what I am discussing is that there is an ethical compulsion within us not just to survive ourselves but to assist others in survival as well because that is what is best for our species.
Ultimately, when you confront an objectivist what is in their best interests, they have to agree that the most selfish thing that they can do for their survival is to stop actually believing in hardcore Objectivism. That's because they are confronted - as we all are - with two basic facts of life:
1. If you go to war against the world, you will lose.
2. Rights are an illusion. You live at the mercy of everyone else on this planet. If we don't like what you're doing or you piss us off enough, we'll kill you. It's just that simple.
I don't think it is that hard Lily of the Lake. Most of us have a sense of unease about something that is wrong with the second thought of not wanting others to know. It is called the sunshine test.
How happy would you be to read about what you have done on the front page of a newspaper?
Lying is a big category. Telling a friend her new haircut is fantastic is sort of expected but more serious lying to get something you want isn't. Telling that friend her pixie cut doesn't make her look butch might be ok on the front page but a story you lying to get $50 from her with no intent to repay might not be so comfortable.
Infidelity is almost always damaging. Maybe you never did promise to be faithful and just let him assume you would be when you should have told him you're an anybodies when your drunk.( An incident between a football team and a girl and a pool did end up on the front page here). It can be spun of course but not comfortable reading regardless I think.
Now lets suppose you like girls but wouldn't like that to be known. Than I would suggest that is wrong for you at that time. Two years later you have got how you feel more sorted out and you know you are a lesbian and not ashamed of it. The it ceases to be wrong for you and becomes right.
So I don't think right and wrong is that difficult.
Interesting... So you believe that how you feel dictates whether an action is right or wrong? Why do you believe that?
Well for me it is true. I do have an active sense of guilt for a start. However I have been in a position until recently where I have been legislatively required to act in good faith despite inherently having my own interests on any matter being decided. I couldn't say one thing to you and something slightly different to some else because that would be spinning it and not be good faith. I do feel internal unease.
I didn't draw it out above but there are about three levels. Societal. eg don't rob banks. Interpersonal. eg don't lie and cheat/cheat on people. Personal. you can lie/cheat on/betray yourself but shouldn't. You might allow yourself to be pressured in sexual activity.
Over-ridingly I feel a sense of unease if I feel a temptation to do something I should't.
Your right a lot of what is right and wrong is a social construct or a method in which politicians and government uses to separate us dividing us up and causing mistrust and hate to keep or gain poet over all of us for their gain. But past all the B. S. of groups amd goverment (politicains) telling us what is right and wrong and beyond main stream religions there is the right and wrongs that are clearly right and wrong to almost all of us like murder, rape, physical or mental abuse all wrong to all of us. Then the good love, understanding, caring, helping just to name a few. All these for example aren't in question they are what they are to almost all of us some wrong some right. But the the right and wrong your probably talking about is those that you have to question because it varies to region, background ane beliefs if its right or if its held wrong. Guess that all depends on what. Is in question and what you believe but if you feel guilty and bad about your actions afterwards then you most likely in some degree wrong.
My answers are always so long 😂😂😂 I write those books for answers lmao I wonder how many people read them or go omg him again and his long a&& responses 😂
So... It depends on popular opinion?
Objectively? Maybe nothing. Subjectively? Whatever an entity defines as "bad" or "good."
I believe we're meant to form these ideas of good & bad though. Our subjective experience comes from the objective world after all. We're linked to objectivity through biology. So although perception is fully subjectively experienced, I don't believe it's fully subjectively produced.
We're biologically biased. We're forced to embody meaning even if we don't consciously wish to do so. So the suffering & pleasure we feel through our senses shows us that there are goals to life. Whatever 'life' is shows us that there are ways to define "good" & "bad." There's an innate bias, purpose, meaning, etc.
But the brain can be biased against things the universe seems indifferent about. Suffering & pleasure can be shaped by our goals due to consciousness. And everything involved in experience can be assigned a "good" or "bad" stamp even if we wouldn't have felt that way under different circumstances, without having context, etc.
So the reason why I'm confining the choice to an entity instead of saying "good & bad are fully objectively determined" is because depending on a things aim, whether it be conscious or not, it will have a preference. So perception is subject to change or be different relative to whatever is experiencing it.
For example:
If trees were sentient to the degree that we are, could form opinions based on what they experience, could communicate with us, etc., we'd likely find out that they'd generally rather have us replaced with a species that wouldn't know how to or wouldn't want to efficiently & effectively annihilate them. So our specific species would be a perceived "bad" to them. Ultimately due to their biological aim. But their conscious preference could shape things in a more specific light.
From a certain perspective, you can't. Like you could make the argument that morality is subjective.
Take what happened with the alleged pandemic.
You had one side dubbing naysayers as granny killers.
The other side not wanting experimental medicine treatments with unknown long term consequences not being peddled and imposed on an unwitting population. Most egregious of all, as Neil Oliver notes in a recent video, having younglings be deceived and manipulated into taking it. Watch the video if you like, it's rare to see someone come from a place of genuine moral force.
At the end of the day, people have different views. Once you impose your view on others, that's when me and you are gonna have an issue, and arguably where the line lays.
Many lines have been overstepped in the past few years. And for those whose lines have been been trampled over, we won't forget it. Not at all. There must be accountability for humanity's descent into madness.
You know Lily people lives are determined by how they think themselves, how they grow up, (Upbringings) and what they believe in (religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs e. t. c).
So everything surrounds the world right now it because of who people are. Killings, robbery, prostitution and other bad doings is because of who people are. So what's wrong and what's right will depend on how you see things. Like people who believe on religious beliefs (christians, Islamic people, Buddha and etc) they will have a certain view on things, also people who don't have religious beliefs they also have a view on certain things too.
But all in all we may all conclude and have our answers from Science and Natural laws because that is all most of people can believe and agreed on. So if something goes out of Natural/Science rules or guidances that is bad no cap, despite how people may feel. Example killing is a bad thing because you take away someone's life and and from people they love. So this is deadly bad. That's why there are a lot laws to punish who ever break the rules.
But also culturally, how l people used to live in past and many things can contribute on how people see different things in life. Also sometimes human instincts can tell someone what he/she is doing is bad or what's good too. So it depends!
You decide what's right and wrong. You can ask yourself questions and how you feel and think about things and if you go deep enough your answers match someone else who has thought deeply about things because fundamentally humans aren't that different.
So can I not tell if someone else is doing something wrong?
Things are relative. What is meant by this is the nature of things differs. For example you could build an ai (artificial intelligence/neural net) who's only goal is to win chess games. If you make it sophisticated enough that it starts to include the world in it's calculation ie how the world works as in it realises that if it took over the solar system and converted everything into the most efficient processors it'd have a better odd of winning a game it would (the odds also increase the smarter it gets at improving it's improvements, it might also wanna protect itself because if you kill it it can't play chess anymore). You can't alter the nature of things well you can if you're advanced enough technically but that might mean the thing has changed. Same with killing something
You can kill or restrict the impact of something if what you feel is right doesn't agree with the other thing and what the other thing thinks is right.
With humans it's a bit simpler because we're all more or less the same. And this is kinda why wisdom matters. Wisdom is the measure of long term thinking. If you understand something deeply enough and the whys and hows , you could explain it to someone and show them exactly why it makes sense. In a way wrong could be defined as anything that's different from the true or eventual nature of us (and i don't think it's bad, by definition cause what you feel bad about is generally what other people feel bad with too)
What you're really doing is expanding the timeline, "if I had to do this for 10000 years (or a hundred thousand or forever) would I wanna?"
Personally, the things I consider to be right is a bit more universal or feels so. If you look at the world sort of like a game, and think about what makes games interesting it's intricacy. The more intricate and sophisticated something is the more fun it is plus the more applicable it is the more fun it is. This is kinda why building things and creating things and finding and figuring things out is fun and maybe the eventual way of approaching things for everything that gets smart enough to do anything it wants and isn't restricted to fixed goals..
Ironically the best things feel simple. It's just we use complexity to get to the simplicities
There is no such thing as good, bad, right and wrong. You show me a situation where one is true, and I'll show you another where it isn't. These aren't universal truths, but attempts to push one person's agenda onto another. Rather than using these words, use functional and dysfunctional. Do they take you toward your long-term objective, or do they not take you in that direction. Understand that we won't get respect if we don't give respect. Unfortunately, there are too many people who feel entitled to push their agenda onto other, without giving any consideration to how that might impact others. As long as people choose to be selfish in this manner, all they're doing is leading others to push back. All extremes need the opposite extreme to stay in balance. Let's find a way to meet in the middle and be considerate of all who might be impacted.
Wait, wait. You say no such thing as right and wrong, then condemn people who force their agendas? Isn't that saying that forcing your agenda... is wrong?
Functional vs dysfunctional...
So if someone doesn't want harmony, there's no need for them to do so? For example, if my long term objective was mass genocide - just as many people as possible - wouldn't it be functional (for me at least) to attain that by either A. becoming a politician and trying to start WWIII or B. doing some big violent event (like a bomb or something)?
Wait, wait, why? I thought the definition of functional was to attain my long term goals...
If not, why should I be cooperate with others if our long term goals don't match up? Essentially, why should I be functional?
Harmony requires compromise to acquire a solution where one group or individual is no more important than any other group or individual. I understand this is idealistic, as a large number of individuals and groups could care less about anyone other than themselves, though they often claim otherwise. We can't wave a magic wand and create harmony in the world, but we can do our best to be considerate of others as much as possible. We can't change others, but we might create a movement that might catch hold and influence the next generation.
But why should I, as an individual, partake in harmony if it doesn't benefit me in my long-term goals?
You're free to be self-centered, like many others, just as I choose to consider how my choices impact others. Don't we have enough people in this world who feel entitled to a bigger piece of the pie? I'm not about to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm just expressing what I've found to be most functional for the most people. Claiming to care about others... as long as it's in your best interest will make it hard for others to trust whatever you say. Whatever we choose to do is our way of modeling the behavior we appreciate receiving from others.
This quite an involved topic. We are Intelligently Designed with knowledge to freely chose, know Right/Wrong, and Conscious. Global standards and Western judicial system is based upon the 10 Commandments. So, it can be said that both morality and law came from the same source and establish a civil society.
—There’s scientific, religious, and philosophical reasoning involved in the vastness of your question. Reply back and I’ll catch it tomorrow and we’ll go through them. Half of your list is addressed in 10 Commandments.
So if it isn't in the 10 commandments, it's not wrong?
Wrong there are 603 God commandments.
Jesus come to tight the laws of God of Abraham
@baserunner611 But what about the ancient laws to the Jews, such as not eating pigs meat? Is that really morally wrong to do?
Leis start with Science and LGBT and same sex. Even ants, cockroaches, mules, dog, etc know that same-sex relationship is nonsensical and wrong. We were intelligently designed by God to procreate and take dominion over the earth. Same sex…like parts.. are in Form, Function, and Purpose crimes against Nature. Human Beings are functioning at a level below dogs, mules, and cats. This is obviously wrong on so many levels.
This debate started in the Garden of Eden. The "Knowledge of Good and Bad" we really do not have that capacity.
And from people I have seen in situations where there are too many choices and too many voices all they want is not a choice but the right or best choice.
Since we can't read minds, we don't even know our own make up, let alone how the environment and its affect on us is working, how do we have this capacity? It short circuits our brain. And most get angry, frustrated, or give up.
Self control is one of the hardest things to do. So controlling others is not possible. I can only be an example and influence but not a leader.
In my book Jesus explained some of the most complicated things very simply. Its why I tend to take his advice over all others. I choose his standard of good. And interestingly most governments up till now have done a close comparison. But again I can only do me and what I am encouraged to do.
God gave us a moral conscience, the conscience is a our guide to innately know right from wrong morally.
The more depraved or a person ignores their conscience the more they end up falling into undiscerning and can't no longer tell what's right or wrong anymore because their conscience has been seared or past feeling.
That's... a surprisingly difficult take to argue with.
But how can I know that God is there? And did He decide what is moral and immoral, or discover it?
You can observe all creation can you? God can't discover nothing as God is all powerful and all knowing by His very nature.
Sorry. I guess I mean...
Could He ever dictate that murder is now the moral thing to do, or does he merely enforce eternal law?
Murder is always wrong before God. In fact one of His moral commandments is that shouldn't Murder.
And no, killing people in war or a mission of war isn't murder in case you are wondering.
Right. But did He invent that law (and could thus revoke it) or is it immovable, even to Him?
It's innate in us to know murder is wrong by the conscience, but God still gave that moral law as a commandment because some people can justify their disgusting ways and I like said can become depraved where they lose the ability to use right judgment so they need to be guided by the law to be kept under check.
1 Timothy 1:5-11
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
I think the difference between right and wrong is the positive or negative impact and outcome it may have. For example the over turning of the abortion laws I believe is wrong. I won't get to political about abortion and the laws behind it but I will say I believe the decision was wrong for one mere reason (among many but I will only highlight this particular point). Abortions are going to happen either way, so with the over turning of the law it has made it dangerous and puts many women in danger. I believe if someone is pro-life then they should care about the health of these young women. Without proper abottion procedures, women's lives are now threatened simply by the over turning of this law. So I believe it's a wrong decision as it has a negative impact and outcome.
So if I did something believing it would have good consequences, but it turned out to have DISASTROUS consequences, would it be a right or wrong choice?
But where is the line where you can tell SOMEONE ELSE that what they are doing is wrong? I need a definition of morals to work with. Or does everyone just decide for themselves?
Honestly it's a hard topic to find a line. I think there is a grey area somewhere in between. You can tell someone that what they're doing is wrong and they may believe they were in the right still. I guess like I mentioned it comes down to the impact it has. I'm sure if you told a terrorist that bombing a building is wrong, they wouldn't care as they believe it's what their god/ gods want. But the impact it would have on the people injured/ killed or the economical disaster it may cause would be disastrous. On the other hand if you tell a child it's wrong to pick their nose it reslly doesn't have a negative impact on anyone. So is it wrong? Maybe society just decides what's right and wrong to control the chaos of society.
And does that mean that if I tried to save a baby from a moving car, but I accidentally made it swerve and kill a mother and her child, what I did was wrong?
Or if an evil scientist poisoned a water source, but it accidentally cured cancer? Is he a good person?
The points you raise are quite interesting to contemplate. Intention plays a major role. Your intention to save the baby was good but its impact had a disastrous outcome. Does that mean the decision was wrong or right? I believe it was still right because by not saving the baby you're making a wrong decision and the babies death is guaranteed whereas you are not to know that the mother and child's death would be a result of the saving of the baby.
The scientist is still a bad person even though his wrong decision cured cancer. He shouldn't be praised for the good impact his wrong decision had.
Hmmm... So if your INTENTION was to render good consequences (whatever that means - I'll get to that) your decision was good?
Does that count even if you're stupid? What if you could have thought about it more, but didn't?
To be honest I don't know. I'm sure to Hitler his intentions were good but socially and morally to everyone else they where wrong due to how he saw them out. Playing devils advocate, could Hitler have gotten what he had wanted by means other then genocide. I don't know? But if he did would he still be seen as such a terrible person. Either way the impact was devastating. And just to make it clear I am not pro-hitler. Couldn't be further from it if I tried.
I get that, and good extreme example. If he thought extinguishing the Jews was the right thing to do, and that's what he WANTED to do, does that excuse mass genocide?
And this isn't even taking into account what a "good" consequence vs a "bad" consequence looks like
That's the thing, people are never going to be able to know what is wrong and what is right, even arguments about pain are meaningless, we can't even prove that pain is a bad thing on our own, morals do not exist if the world was only for humans, a thing may be very normal to some people and extremely disgusting to others, like brother-sister incest.
The only way to know what is right and what is wrong is through religion, because the one who created us is the one who decides whether a thing is ok or not, I hope you start searching for the one and only true god and succeed in finding him, as for me it seems clear to me that it's Allah, and the religion of Islam thus I'd advice you to learn more about Islam and see.
Liberalism can never tell you what's wrong and what's right, it's just a random world of freedom for everyone to do whatever they want, may Allah guide you to the one and only true path.
Religion does seem to hold the only cohesive argument, ironically...
How can I know if God exists?
The less collective morality we have the worse society gets, the higher the rates of depression, mental illness, substance abuse, infidelity, imprisonment, broken family’s, hurt people and damaged children. People like to pretend it doesn’t have an impact but there is a clear correlation.
The basic answer of the Bible is, how do you know God of Abraham is good. known is rightness and good.
It is the value your parents give you since you wear birth, social in Hollywood have there own rules on like. The teaching of Jesus Christ with his mercy keep you live.
Hindus are the bubbliest Muslims.
The moral is a decision in private, public because it an 😡
If you want more we will talk
There also man laws or give God what is God give cease what is cesar
Give Cesar what is cesar
God of Abraham is sport and moral but cease is money
I'm afraid I can only understand the basics of what you are saying due to grammatical issues, but it seems that you are saying morals are based around faith. How can I know my faith isn't just an illusion?
Sport is spirit
What do you believe in
I'm still trying to figure that out...
I think I believe that there is a God. And that he (it?) knows me.
Come on, let talk
So you believe in Christianity, then?
I'm not sure. I'm trying to be cautious in what I believe and not until I know what I CAN believe.
I regularly tell or talk in the Baptist Church office with with family or individuals. What do you feel you are in doing or what think is wrong.
It you ideas is important your views on life is important.
Ethics is what you will do, moral what you believe in
Look 👀 at the end, it what? You want to living life like but remember you only have one life living for you.
Set you moral and ethical basic on what you personally treasures.
But look at the life you want, goal to set. If you knoxville Tennessee we can a coffee talk 💬 about
Or just keep ask questions
In life, there is the easy right decision. It what 😦 tyre of life. You want? And only can that decision!
There is beautiful people who is got ethic they known what is right and wrong.
In the old treatment, you right are you and was raised Hebrew?
You are responsible for your own life choice. Okay. Think 🤔 about your life and yourself
If you take in private
bendstewart443@gmail. com
There is a lot of friendly people who have excellent ethic between wrong and right. They said there is a difference between right and wrong because of West society and east society is not so. The punishment is different but the basic frame is there.
You okay?
you need a moral framework to answer this question, then you compare the action to the moral framework
I use nationalism, the question of if something is good for america
then i use utilitarianism, the question of is it good for the maximum number of americans
But why those branches? Why not any other arbitrary tool of measurement?
these are the moral guides needed to produce the most power, security and enjoyment for my life, if america does well i do well
Interesting Q! Philosphers have been droning on about this for centuries trying to find a metric that can measure good versus bad.
And the closest that I like is wellbeing, or greatest good. Whatever is best for the most amount of people is usually right.
Define "best."
m quite a complex and complicated question...
but I still can narrow it down to a very simple and general approach... if I am hurting myself it is bad, and if I am hurting others then that's definitely and absolutely wrong, it ain't right... lol
But why? Why do we believe that? Can you prove that that is what makes right vs wrong?
to me, personally... is not a matter of believe, is not even something I was taught
if I do wrong to others, I feel bad about it... if I hurt others I do feel awful about it
that's why it is very simple for me to be absolutely sure it is bad and wrong
same goes for what is right and good... doing that makes other feel good, and it makes me feel great
So it's about... feelings? What if someone doesn't feel guilt? Is it still wrong?
those who feel no remorse are some level of psychopath, yes...
depending on the extreme of the situation, they're just careless, selfish... psychopaths, or worse... they're politicians
The difference is the law. If the law says it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Probably is the law isn’t always right either. You are dealing with evil people making laws to justify there power and egos. If they said killing was ok, it would be morally a wrong thing but a lawfully acceptable thing. I think it comes down to the values instilled upon us as humans when we were younger.
personally, I think that its right if its not harming anyone around you, or you are sensibly justified in your actions. Not only that but if your intentions are good and not to attack or harm yourself or someone around you.
Why do you believe that?
But why is a lack of harm considered okay? What draws that line in the sand?
Go with the side of science, logic, and truth. Reject the side of emotions and feel-good Kool Aid. Whether that be issues on the right (abortion) or issues on the left (everything else).
What does science, logic, and truth have to say about morality? David Hume seemed to demonstrate (in fact, made a logical proof) that science nor logic can have any say in morality. "Is cannot imply ought," as he put it.
Or can they?
Gotcha. I'll take my leave then
Everyone thinks they are right and their opinion in correct. Everyone have their own belief and I respect those beliefs unless they are toxic in my opinion.
As we get closer to the end of time, the lies will seem like the truth and the truth will seem like the lies. No one will be able to distinguish the truth and a lie.
Nothing is right nothing is wrong its just a matter of perspective i feel. Morally speaking wrong means hurting peoples emotions for no reason. Unless ur stuff has a proper cause even wrong actions can sometimes be morally correct.
When (and why) does something become "morally justifiable"? Who decides that?
What is right and wrong is determined by the people. I believe it can be changed. For example, back in 9th century Scandinavia, we thought that sacrificing and killing another human being wasn't so bad. Now, it's considered the worst crime there is.
Wrong screws people over and right promotes people. Why lgbtq degens are confused is they dont understand the principles of life. You dont do what you want you do whats right and whats right has been proven over time.
Screws over vs promotes...
Has been proven over time how? As in, Darwin style elimination?
Yes exactly so a lot of our instincts tell us whats right. Or if there's proof of a better way contrary to our instincts then we follow that.
So... Essentially, that which works over time is good, and that which doesn't is bad? I need to reflect on that...
Ooh, that's interesting.
It's no different than evolution. Functional changes survive and thrive. As with evolution, there will always be differences, but the functional ones will thrive, and the others will eventually die off. It may take a long time from our perspective, but, when you compare it to the life of the universe, it's merely a blink of an eye.
@caring__1 Is there anyway to look forward, as to not be forced to experience trial and error?
The best way is to learn from our past and the past of others. Forgetting your past will prevent you from learning from it. Bring the knowledge forward and leave the pain in the past. There will always be some unknown, but paying attention to patterns and being cautious will generally allow us to see any red flags that exist. It's amazing how often people admit they saw, yet overlooked, red flags.
You can't tell any more:
'' Right becomes wrong, the left becomes the right
And they sing as they march with their flags unfurled''
(Dire Straits)
Evil is live spelled backwards. Taking away from others is immoral, whether it's their property, wellbeing, or whatever. Coercing, lying, and anything else you won't want done into yourself.
But why do we believe that? Where is our source?
Just take 5 grams of mushrooms. Jk
I actually studied from a variety of sources. I tend to go with the idea that we can choose one of two paths, which are serving yourself at the expense of others, or serving everyone. Most of us are already on the path of serving everyone, while the minority is serving themselves. You're sure to reap what you sow, so be as loving as you want, or as unloving, but chances are that most of us want to be loving, but aren't brave enough to express our love.
This is a very simple and almost useless statement here, I'm no occultists but I really have learned a lot of what I wish more people knew.
It's still important to listen to your own soul, and have love for yourself so you aren't in lack. If your soul tells you to do something unusual, listen to it...
So is it just a choice that must be made to believe in your own soul - and what it says to you?
That is the only way to know what's truly right or wrong.
And when it comes to good and evil, as I mentioned. Good is what contributes to life, evil is what opposes life.
Everything is moral except when it impacts someone else's freewill.
Well what is right or wrong is subjective. My view is that as long as every person whose well being is being affected consents to said action, said action can’t be wrong.
But why? What is your reasoning for believing that?
Well it’s a fundamental basis of my view. I mean I think we should be permissive as much as possible until it actually starts harming people for which these people did not agree to.
It's a little bit of both.
The idea of right and wrong serves a purpose and as long as that purpose is met it can't really be "wrong"
Giving a foolproof explanation of the purpose behind morality is going to be difficult
However I can provide a flawed description
The purpose of morality is to maintain social order and let humanity continue to prosper and prevent discord.
That's a flawed description that can have multiple interpretations
Liberals cannot. Democrats cannot. Anyone who loves these LGBTQ monsters can't understand the difference between right and wrong because they are all mentally ill.
I think I might need some reasoning before I buy into that philosophy...
What makes it so obviously wrong to you?
Use critical thinking skills. The socratic method. Logical consistency. Thoroughly investigate your beliefs. Hopefully they still teach that in school and not that CRT bologna.
That's what I've tried to depend on for several years - but then I read Godel's Theorem (in mathematics) and David Hume, both of which essentially proved that logic cannot solve moral dillema
I believe in moral relativism in most matters, except rape.
Wait, what makes the difference there?
I pray for God to give me guidance when I'm not sure. Your heart will tell you when you're wrong.
Right and wrong isn't a social construct. I mean man may have laws, but there are higher laws.
if it makes you feel good, do it. there is no right amd wrong. only fun amd boring
A right choice is happy you did
Wrong choice we beat ourselves up why in the hell did I do that
GOD Christ decides what is right and wrong
not the human race
How do we know that? And how do we know that God exists?
type this in on youtube (rocket hits dome )
he is right above us a few miles away watching all the stupidity the human race is doing
If you can't tell you had terrible parents and no way could be a Christian
I simply want to be cautious in what I believe. How do they (or anyone) know what is right or wrong?
Right and wrong don't exist in nature, but as humans we're supposed to know this stuff instinctively. At least if you have a conscience.
Right and wrong is largely based on morals and eithics no matter what we are talking about.
Yes, but what defines the moral/ ethical boundaries?
So, it's completely coincidental what my morals are? Just based on where and to whom I was born?
Yes, but I could have been born on the opposite side of the world, or amongst a tribe that has polygyny and infanticide.
Yes, let's go with that. Are morals merely based on luck?
Philosophy.
Anarchism teaches us that our freedom ends where someone elses begins.
Right and wrong are subjective. If it makes me feel guilty it is wrong.
Everyone has a different set of morals. The law enforces the average.
When it comes to oppinions the concept of right and wrong are entirely constructed.
There is no such thing as right or wrong. No such thing as good or bad either.
Pushing your ideology onto others for a start that's wrong. if you have Certain views allow others to have their own opinions without getting offended
GOD makes the rules
he decides what is right and wrong
Right is logical and normal.
Mental illness is not logical or normal.
Wrongs harm other people.
But why do we believe that? Like, where does that come from?
So morality is based on what helps survival of a species?
Hmmm... Honestly, not a bad take. But how can we know what's moral other than experience?
Right decisions don't cause harm to anyone.
But why do you say that? What makes you believe it?
No complaints, equals no problems. Or minimal problems. Just take Russia for example, they needed Crimea, so instead of annexing it and killing hundreds of thousands of people, and causing 100 of billions of dollars of damage, why didn't they share part of the oil or gas reserves so that both the Russian and Ukrainian cultures could prosper because the market is very reliable. Not only could they have had Asia together, but they could have had the whole European market as well. The answer is greed, and the fact that Putin is a deceitful person, if Ukrainians were once little Russians, or little brothers, why would you not treat them like they were.
Come up pm
I want you in pm 😘
You're asking us what YOUR moral values are?
Its based on biology and human evolution.
It’s ultimately just opinion.
It has to be taught.
By who?
By whomever or whatever is surrounding us. We learn by the examples of others.
So the people around us determines what is right and wrong?
We generally absorb what we learn from our surrounding. We incorporated what we see and here from those around us. None of us are born with the ability to make sound moral judgement.
Read the Holy Bible
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions