UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / How can you tell if someone is right or wrong? or better is there a right or wrong?
Is there a right or wrong/evil or good?
-
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 06:38:18
just like the title says: how CAN you tell if someone is right or wrong,
the way i mean this is in; think of star wars, most people will think luke is the
"good" guy and vader is the "bad" guys, also vader turns "good" in the end...
now the way we perceive good or evil/ right or wrong, is through the use of our own
perspective, the way we see/feel about things...(which are usually the thing we get taught at early age).
But then, is it right to say someone is wrong, just because he disagree's with your point of view?
another example, war. (i'm not trying to go political here just an example)
in war you have 2 sides, both sides will probably think that what they are doing is
for the better, they probably think they are the "good" guys and the others the "bad" guys...
but how can they really? because it's only one opinion against another, is there really
something like "good" and "evil", right or wrong?...
obviously, we live in a society where the majority is right, this would mean that as long
as the majority thinks robbing someone is a bad thing, they will label the person who steals
evil, but what if that person had little to no choice if he was to say... feed his family, for which
he had no money anymore, because the crappy job at the mines stopped... or something...
people might empathise with him, and feel he is "kindof" right in what he wanted...
hell, that's actually perfect... because in robin hood, he steals from the rich and gives it to the poor...
i understand why people think its a good thing, and obviously in the story of robin hood
he steals it because it was stolen from the people in the first place(by taxes though, don't know why that should inherently be evil)
but, he still robs people, why is it then that we perceive it as the "right" thing to do?
obviously you might say its the intention behind it which was good and the actions taken to get there were wrong....
the question might be phrased better, if it was: Is there a right or wrong/good or evil?
since any person can be as radical as they want to be, they might kill babies because they think it's fun,
and really all you can do about it, is not like it(or they way we deal with it, is imposing our beliefs/viewpoint on that person)
because its simply an opinion, yours could be just as radical to him, as his opinions are to you...
well, about here i lost my train of thought on this subject...(i might also not be completely coherent, but thats because i jump from one thought to another, i hope you can understand
) but i think ive given enough basis to form a nice discussion..
so to summarize:
How can you tell if someone is right or wrong? Is there a right or wrong?
People in the world see things as right or wrong/good and evil, different people will
acknowledge different things as right or wrong/good and evil...
also the whole "thinking something is good/evil", is only an opinion and may or may not be
shared by others... obviously we live in a society, society apparantly needs rules, which
are the rules of the majority... and that dictates whats right or wrong....
So, i haven't got an awnser to my own question, maybe there is no awnser, or maybe you
could give one, so go ahead please and discuss...
PS: i realize this might actually be labelled better as philosophy, but i really want
some arguments, instead of the usual "i agree"/"i disagree" kindof posts that you get in most
other parts of the forums, and i think it could be a nice serious discussion... -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 08:57:29
I think that it was something created. personally i think of it as time, obviously to ppl if we let everyone do w/e they want then all hell would break loose, so something like a medium, a good and a bad was created. obviously some people at some point iono when or how decided to make the line between the two, so in a sense they themselves created this right and wrong. but now people at smart enough to tell question that, and make their own set of "rights" and "wrongs". so i think the concept itself is kinda of subjective, we can make our own sets of the two, but nones nvr btr, but some ppl may frown upon it cause of wat they believe. hope that kind of answers ur question.
PS i know i prolly have some other things to add on, but i cant thnk of them right now >.< if i remember i'll edit it in i guess -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 09:04:11
They who are right do not cause harm to others. Those who are wrong do cause harm to others. An action is therefore wrong if it harms other people and right so long as it causes no harm or damage. This is very general and there are exceptions however.
For instance, if one must harm others, the right would be to take the action that causes the least harm. Those who do wrong would cause more harm. -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 14:58:01
@Fang: i myself had also concluded that it (obviously or not) was created by man, and therefore will be subjective to it
and thus for everyone it might/will be different.... so what you say is true..
and thus the question is awnsered, but there are 2 awnsers
??
-yes, there is a right and wrong, just for evryone different(
-and no, because everyone thinks of different right and wrongs, there is no "real" right and wrong
(hmmm, i still don't understand it...)
@Fresh: Obviously, what you stated is a personal belief, i do not say i "personally" disagree, hell I even largely agree
with your point of view, but that wasn't really what i asked.
Because with your viewpoint, what if someone thinks:
"causing harm is good" (ie the exact opposite of what you said).
then both would be right by their own terms, but according to each other, they see each as a bad person
ie, you will think that the person who hurts people for fun is wrong, and he will think you're wrong
but in that case, can we really say, that one of the two is right?.... or at least more right then the other?
and if one of the two is right... why? -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 17:16:59
To me there is no wrong. There are only right things to begin with and the results are always right as well. Every situation people create is good for the people who are involved in the situation because they can learn from it.
You can say that something is 'wrong' or 'bad' because you don't like it. But to me the things that you don't like are also good. -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 18:08:28
I can't give a more concrete answer than "whatever you feel is right or wrong".
this depends on which moral view you hold, whether it be:
- relativism: what's right or wrong is defined by the culture
- divine command: what's right is defined by God
- utilitarianism: what's right is what maximizes happiness
- egoism: what's right is what maximizes your own happiness
- deontology: look at Kant's Categorical Imperative
- virtue ethics: what's right is what the person with a virtuous character would do
- feminism: what's right is about being partial to concrete persons with whom we have special and valuable relationships
choose what you want, each have their pros and cons. -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:24:17QUOTE (fairy @ Jun 24 2008, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To me there is no wrong. There are only right things to begin with and the results are always right as well. Every situation people create is good for the people who are involved in the situation because they can learn from it.
The holocaust? Murder? Torture? What was learnt from this and how were the results right?
-
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:36:08
A murder is the result of an impossible love. The murderer and the one who was murdered will forgive each other later (either in the place where they are when they are dead, or in a future life).
-
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:38:59QUOTE (fairy @ Jun 24 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A murder is the result of an impossible love. The murderer and the one who was murdered will forgive each other later (either in the place where they are when they are dead, or in a future life).
When a sniper kills a target, is that an impossible love?
I'm also interested in your views on how torture could be seen as right... Perhaps it can, however, I am skeptical as to how you are going to qualify your statement. -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:41:11
So its alright to murder because you'll be forgiven? To me that's wrong. I figure you just have to trust your intuition on what right and wrong, there isn't a formula for this sort of stuff. So of course everyone's views on right and wrong are bound to vary somewhat.
-
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:52:48
I think you're going to laugh at me, but OK.
There are no victims in the universe. There are only volunteers. Everybody has the might and the right to create what he wants, whatever the reason. People often involve pain in their lives to make themselves more aware of the fact that they are God. (Yes, you are also God). People who torture are volunteers for making the pain people want. -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 19:56:06QUOTE (fairy @ Jun 24 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think you're going to laugh at me, but OK.
There are no victims in the universe. There are only volunteers. Everybody has the might and the right to create what he wants, whatever the reason. People often involve pain in their lives to make themselves more aware of the fact that they are God. (Yes, you are also God). People who torture are volunteers for making the pain people want.
A striking and interesting viewpoint you have... This conversation could carry on for a long while however, we are moving off-topic slightly and will do more so with what my next post would have contained. No doubt this converstation will arise again in a discussion in which it will be more relevant and then we shall play it out to its full extent! -
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2008 21:01:23
Absolute definitions to right and wrong exist only if an absolute purpose of existence exists.
Something is 'right' or 'good' when it fulfills its purpose of existence. Something is 'wrong' or 'evil' when it does not fulfill its purpose of existence.
For example, if the absolute purpose of existence of a watch is to tell time, the watch is 'right' or 'good' when it tells time. If this watch does not fulfill its purpose by not telling the time, then it is 'wrong' or 'evil.'
The absolute purpose of existence of man should not be man-made, since man is not the creator of himself. The absolute purpose of existence of man, if it exists, is solely dependent on the intent behind man's creator. If no such creator exists, man has no absolute purpose, which brings us to the conclusion that there are no absolute definitions of good and evil.
Therefore, the absolute definitions of good and evil exist only if there is a creator of man, whether or not man acknowledges its existence. If there is an absolute purpose to your life, then good and evil are absolutely defined. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 03:36:25QUOTE (CrancK @ Jun 24 2008, 02:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>PS: i realize this might actually be labelled better as philosophy, but i really want
some arguments, instead of the usual "i agree"/"i disagree" kindof posts that you get in most
other parts of the forums, and i think it could be a nice serious discussion...
No problem; that's exactly what this forum is meant for.
Deciding whether something is morally right or wrong is the study of ethics. Ethical standards fall under broad categories and they resemble values in that people decide which philosophy to follow. In all your examples, it depends on the ethical model to which the person subscribes. I think the following may interest you.
This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.
What is Ethics?
Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT- Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.
- Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.
- Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems.
- Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.
- Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.
- Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.
- Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.
Five Sources of Ethical Standards
The Utilitarian Approach
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.
The Rights Approach
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
The Fairness or Justice Approach
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.
The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.
The Virtue Approach
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?"
Putting the Approaches Together
Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however.
The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights.
We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.
The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.
Making Decisions
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.
The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.
We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.
Source: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 04:21:44
Right and wrong is opinion. Murder is wrong. But not neccessarily. Most people would agree it is, though.
Adultry is wrong. Now many many people would dispute that. In fact there isn't even such a thing as adultry in some places... so what makes it wrong? Because people told us it was. Because people said "you shouldn't do this" -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 08:20:40QUOTE (thig @ Jun 24 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Absolute definitions to right and wrong exist only if an absolute purpose of existence exists.
Something is 'right' or 'good' when it fulfills its purpose of existence. Something is 'wrong' or 'evil' when it does not fulfill its purpose of existence.
For example, if the absolute purpose of existence of a watch is to tell time, the watch is 'right' or 'good' when it tells time. If this watch does not fulfill its purpose by not telling the time, then it is 'wrong' or 'evil.'
The absolute purpose of existence of man should not be man-made, since man is not the creator of himself. The absolute purpose of existence of man, if it exists, is solely dependent on the intent behind man's creator. If no such creator exists, man has no absolute purpose, which brings us to the conclusion that there are no absolute definitions of good and evil.
Therefore, the absolute definitions of good and evil exist only if there is a creator of man, whether or not man acknowledges its existence. If there is an absolute purpose to your life, then good and evil are absolutely defined.
Surely the purpose of humanity is the continuation of the species and therefore, what is right is anything which allows the species to survive and what is wrong are those things that damage the possibility of survival of the species.
Interesting that if they were to be taken as the 'natural rules' that some acts that are considered unlawful now are not actually 'wrong' such as rape or theft. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 09:26:47QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 05:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The holocaust? Murder? Torture? What was learnt from this and how were the results right?
Murder, Torture can be right IMO.
what if murdering a person/people would save millions of other life?
What if you tortured a person/people and got a information which saved millions of other life?
Good and Bad is a point of view. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 09:46:46
I must say i find fairiy's opinion very interesting and I completely agree with it.
We never can't be objective enough so whatever we do seems right to us. Only rare people can say they are wrong (not admit, because admiting, is, well, admiting they are wrong).
And paind is one part of every person's life. Can you imagine life without pain? Any pain wheter it's physical or mental (? can't remember the rightword
)
And I somewhere read that what makes us like God is the fact that we can tell right from wrong. It's just that right and wrong are different to different people, cultures... and that if we admit that we are wrong we lose that one part that makes us like god - perfection, never being wrong (I know it's controversial)
And same with murder and torture. what if someone murdered lets say, Adolf Hitler. would you find that wrong?
You've probably read Crime and Punishment, where Raskolnikov doesn't find muredring wrong, but only he fact that he got caught !? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 10:25:59QUOTE (WhiteFang @ Jun 25 2008, 04:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Murder, Torture can be right IMO.
what if murdering a person/people would save millions of other life?
What if you tortured a person/people and got a information which saved millions of other life?
Good and Bad is a point of view.
I was thinking rather more along the lines of useless murder or torture. That was why I gave the example of the holocaust. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 11:07:42
I believe that this topic is tooo road in a sense...So many factors of ethics can be brought into play. I am not going to post my thoughts of this one, because I'd prefer to talk about right and wrong, when there is a subject, instead of the whole enchilada.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 12:51:35QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 04:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surely the purpose of humanity is the continuation of the species and therefore, what is right is anything which allows the species to survive and what is wrong are those things that damage the possibility of survival of the species.
Interesting that if they were to be taken as the 'natural rules' that some acts that are considered unlawful now are not actually 'wrong' such as rape or theft.
Just as a bushman who finds a computer won't know the absolute purpose of the computer until he asks whoever made the computer of its absolute purpose, we cannot make such a firm conclusion (that the purpose of humanity is the continuation of the species) without first asking whoever or whatever made us. Our assumption that the purpose of humanity is the continuation of the species may be as flawed as the bushman's assumption that the purpose of a computer is to create thunder or something similar. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 15:00:07
Empirically, I would say survival of the specie is our purpose due to the numerous evidences... such as evolution, natural fear of death, etc.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 15:17:45
The Holocaust is not the best example because it relies on a posteriori reasoning. In other words, killing Hitler might have saved millions of people, but we are judging this event after the fact. Ethics are meant to help us decide whether to initiate an action (or not) or perpetuate an ongoing action (or not). Since the past is immutable, there is not much point debating "what might have been."
Another problem with moral debates is that ethical paradigms rarely converge on a single solution. Take female genital mutilation (FGM) in African countries as an example. Cultural relativism would condone this practice but the rights approach would advise against it. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 17:48:08QUOTE (WhiteFang @ Jun 25 2008, 05:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Murder, Torture can be right IMO.
what if murdering a person/people would save millions of other life?
What if you tortured a person/people and got a information which saved millions of other life?
Good and Bad is a point of view.
That doesn't make murder or torture right. Those are probably some of the worst things people can do. If it is really to save millions of people, its still wrong to kill some one.
If you want to save people, you might have to do something that is wrong. You can't justify bringing harm to people because you think its right. If you really want to save people you have to be prepared to do something wrong and be prepared for the consequences of doing those things for any other means. You might think its the right thing to do, but you should admit you yourself are doing something wrong If you going to kill some one regardless of the circumstances or the ends, you yourself should be prepared to die. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 17:51:29
Good and bad are abstract. This means that they are only put into action when accepted by people as correct. Phillosophic ideas cannot ever be judged as right or wrong because it is all how people view them.
allright, now on the topic that killing one person to save millions. I say that altough this is not morally right to do it is the right choice overall. think about it
1000000>1
Therefore if it is wrong to kill one person it is 1000000 times worse to kill 1000000. Dont confuse this with saying that it is ok to kill people, because i do not think it is. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 18:24:47QUOTE (Awesome @ Jun 25 2008, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That doesn't make murder or torture right. Those are probably some of the worst things people can do. If it is really to save millions of people, its still wrong to kill some one.
How about if a suicide bomber is running into a busy train station and the police know he is just seconds away from detonating a bomb. Do they shoot the bomber, thus causing one death, or allow the bomber to continue and cause the death of himself plus perhaps hundreds of others? Surely murder here, is the 'right' choice? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 18:38:57
The ends don't matter, overall you might be doing something right that helps a lot of people. You are still doing something wrong to do so, and should be able to accept full responsibly for murder. If you want to help millions, you at least need to be prepared to sacrifice your self.
I am not saying people who kills another person to save people should be punished as such, but they should maintain a certain attitude about the topic so they make the right decision. If you think good can come from killing some one you'll make an error in judgement eventually.
Stopping people from dieing is preventing a wrong, not bringing good. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 18:48:11
classical case:
utilitarinism vs deontology.
the ends justify the means vs duty.
the argument against consequentialism is that you cannot predict the future; therefore, doing what would be an immortal act in hope of having a good outcome cannot be guaranteed; it is therefore preferable to only do the right thing, regardless of what happens. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 19:44:10QUOTE (Awesome @ Jun 25 2008, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Stopping people from dieing is preventing a wrong, not bringing good.
so your saying it would be better to let the millions die and let the wrong happen? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 20:02:28
the argument is simple:
- if you do something immoral: you can be held accountable for it. if it works out and you get good consequences, good for you, but if it doesn't work out, you'll be held responsible for having done something immoral
- if you don't do something immoral: whatever happens, it's not your fault, you cannot be held accountable for. you didn't do anything wrong.
since you cannot predict the future, deontologists will argue you should always do the right thing, regardless of consequences.
there's also the problem that, you THINK the consequences of an immoral action are good, but you're wrong and the consequences are in fact even worse. Since consequences are unreliable, you shouldn't base your judgment and what you think will happen.