Thanks for BA. :)
How does she know?
Easy Answer: Idk, she's my mom. She was born with it. =) The answer I think you want is: There is no right & wrong. There is only what my heart & head agrees with. My mom raised me and she explains why she thinks it is wrong and then I decide if she is right, or wrong, and I usually agree with her. It's all perspective, but I realize that what my family considers "right" are usually positive things, and what we consider "wrong" are usually negative things.
That is what I wanted. :) ty.
You're welcome. =)
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Although realistically if you go by what people should do can't society be wrong.?
yes, but then how do you know they're wrong?
I guess it would be if it feels obvious to you that it is not good.
but then that would mean almost everything you know is wrong, then where do you go from there? Anything you perceive as right after that would be wrong? ;o
Test it."Rape(A) violates freedom of choice(B). Violating freedom of choice(B) is against the law(C), therefore rape(A) is illegal(C)"A->BB->CTherefore, A->C.
But is everything that is illegal morally wrong? That's a bad example. To go with that example would mean anything that violates freedom of choice is wrong, so having rape illegal is wrong because it violates the freedom of choice to rape. That example doesn't work. Morality can't be tested, it can only be assumed. For example, murder is wrong, but can it be justified as morally correct?
That is ture to I guess the situation applies too.
Yes it does, because everyone under the constitution has the freedom of choice.When one person(A) is willing and the other(B) is not, that negates the rapist's freedom.A^B -> L = Both people consenting, therefore legal (L).~B = One person not consenting.If B is not consenting, then you don't have A and B. If you don't have A and B (A^B), then it's illegal (~L)
What? No, laws (because the constitution isn't really governing laws per se, it creates a structure for the government to go by) are meant to restrict freedom because freedom is thought to cause chaos. Laws limit freedom, freedom opens up the argument of what will people naturally do when they have no laws to govern them; will they commit immoral or moral acts? How will they know what is moral or immoral if there is no one there to tell them? get it? You're example doesn't work.
If you murder someone(A), there will be a negative consequence(B). True?If you want to avoid B, then you don't do A. (~A).If you could murder someone freely and without consequence, murder would be more frequent as it was before stricter laws were in place. That doesn't make it any less wrong back then than it does now.
-_- What makes murder wrong, is it just because it's illegal? Can murder be justified, if a woman murders her rapist is it wrong? She can still go to jail for it, so by your logic it's still wrong. The point is when is something wrong, you can't just say it's wrong because it's illegal (unless you're arguing that your moral beliefs are influenced by society, then you can).
Murder is wrong because you're killing another person and that leads to negative consequences. You can be revenge killed by their family and your reputation can be ruined because others fear for their own lives.However, the logic is more extensive if the murder is an act of self defense... at this point, it's not worth breaking down step by step if you just don't see it.
But if murder is an act of revenge (just like the example of the woman killing her rapist) and not of self defense, is it still wrong? She will still receive negative consequences for it, but it can still be argued as justifiable. Morality and law are two things, imo, that don't work well together (although they are meant to) because morality is relative. The government can't tell me what is right and what is wrong.