Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Aaron Spicka · May 9, 2005, 06:17 pm

I've always believed that everone had the same sense of right and wrong. That only applies when one sets aside all personal biases, desires, and conditioning. But as time has gone on I have started to question wether that is really true or not. What does everythink about this? Is there different standards of right and wrong? If so, why are some things acceptable at one time or situation and not acceptable in another? :rolleyes:

Mr.Vicchio · May 9, 2005, 06:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Aaron Spicka

I've always believed that everone had the same sense of right and wrong. That only applies when one sets aside all personal biases, desires, and conditioning. But as time has gone on I have started to question wether that is really true or not. What does everythink about this? Is there different standards of right and wrong? If so, why are some things acceptable at one time or situation and not acceptable in another? :rolleyes:

You have to be more specific.

Certian guildelines in life on right and wrong can make such decisions very easy, or very hard. But give some examples of what you are talking about, this is a bit vague to work with.

Charles · May 9, 2005, 06:58 pm

Morally speaking i beleive when we are born we are blank slates. Actions or events have no defining or perceptible quality that makes them definitively 'good' or 'bad'.... Youre not giving us mutch to work on here!

Aaron Spicka · May 9, 2005, 08:06 pm

Sorry about that. For example, what someone doesn't know won't hurt them. It deceptive and in a way dishonest I guess. But than again if something bad doesn't come from it upon that person or even anyone else, is it still wrong when there isn't a repercusion?

Milton Bradley · May 9, 2005, 08:06 pm

Right, and wrong differ widely among the different cultures.

Try going to India, and locating a Burger King.

Libertarian · May 9, 2005, 09:48 pm

Morals are conditioned and NOT absolute. Right and wrong are always changing. Look back one hundread years. There has been much change. It also was at one time seen that is was totally wrong for a woman to even talk in front of her husbands guyfriends. Now, as we see it, women have every right men do. So as this one example shows, right and wrong are not absolute.

Aaron Spicka · May 10, 2005, 10:12 am

Just because it wasn't socially acceptable for a women to speak in front of her husbands guyfriends doesn't mean its wrong. There are absolutes.

Cephus · May 10, 2005, 11:03 am

Quote:

Quote by: Aaron Spicka

I've always believed that everone had the same sense of right and wrong. That only applies when one sets aside all personal biases, desires, and conditioning. But as time has gone on I have started to question wether that is really true or not. What does everythink about this? Is there different standards of right and wrong? If so, why are some things acceptable at one time or situation and not acceptable in another? :rolleyes:

That's because morals are subjective. Not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong, those terms are defined relative to the culture and society to which you belong, and even then, often redefined locally to fit the local situation.

No such thing as objective right and wrong.

**Pooeypants** · May 10, 2005, 11:13 am

Quote:

Quote by: Aaron Spicka

Just because it wasn't socially acceptable for a women to speak in front of her husbands guyfriends doesn't mean its wrong. There are absolutes.

From whence forth do we obtain these absolutes? If they are from holy texts, then which religion has the correct set?

Lycan · May 10, 2005, 01:13 pm

Quote:

Cephus said: That's because morals are subjective. Not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong, those terms are defined relative to the culture and society to which you belong, and even then, often redefined locally to fit the local situation.

No such thing as objective right and wrong.

I completely agree.

Sonart · May 10, 2005, 02:08 pm

I make graven images for a living.

I work for a large, very well known computer game company. Our best selling game is a role-playing fantasy game involving elves, dwarves, wizards, dragons, etc. etc. As an illustrator working with marketing and web presence, I create images of many characters, including a variety of fantasy gods and demigods who inhabit and influence the digital world of the game.

This is strictly forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Am I right or wrong?

Taken a step further, strict Muslim teaching forbids creating artistic representations of any living thing because "only God (Allah) can create man and living things."

Again, am I right or wrong?

.

PatrickHenry · May 10, 2005, 02:22 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Cephus

No such thing as objective right and wrong.

I am certain that I will be accused of strawmanning, but if there is no standard at all, then anything I decide to do is right, correct? Then why have laws, police, courts, penitentiaries?

By this logic, you must allow others to do as they see fit, even as you do as you wish. Doesn't this lead to chaos? Isn't this why we repress violent crime? Isn't this why we prosecute theft and fraud? Because there ARE objective standards?

Lycan · May 10, 2005, 04:11 pm

Quote:

I am certain that I will be accused of strawmanning, but if there is no standard at all, then anything I decide to do is right, correct? Then why have laws, police, courts, penitentiaries?

By this logic, you must allow others to do as they see fit, even as you do as you wish. Doesn't this lead to chaos? Isn't this why we repress violent crime? Isn't this why we prosecute theft and fraud? Because there ARE objective standards?

There are variants with societal and cultural standards that generally form the attitude of what constitutes right and wrong in regards to the law/morality for the members of that society. Not to mention the changes over time within a single society that revise those standards. ex: It was excepted and considered "right" to marry a 13 yr old girl, but society now has evolved to the understanding of how it is mental and physically harmful for a 13 yr old to be in that situation, thus our "right" has changed.

PatrickHenry · May 10, 2005, 04:27 pm

OK, Lycan. Not contesting that some changes have occurred. But are you saying that no standards exist? May I do to you and yours as I wish, only prevented by what you personally can do to stop me?

Sonart · May 10, 2005, 05:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Patrick Henry

But are you saying that no standards exist? May I do to you and yours as I wish, only prevented by what you personally can do to stop me?

Patrick, you've walked right up to and are staring at your own answer...

-- Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you; do not do against others what you'd not have them do against you --

.

Mr.Vicchio · May 10, 2005, 07:00 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Aaron Spicka

Sorry about that. For example, what someone doesn't know won't hurt them. It deceptive and in a way dishonest I guess. But than again if something bad doesn't come from it upon that person or even anyone else, is it still wrong when there isn't a repercusion?

Personal integrity covers this.

If I took 50 bucks I found in a wallet on the side of the road, am I hurting the owner?

After all he all ready lost the wallet, and thus the damage was done, thus no real harm for him if I keep it, and gain for me.

But it would still be wrong to keep the cash.

PatrickHenry · May 10, 2005, 11:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Sonart

-- Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you; do not do against others what you'd not have them do against you --

Is this an objective standard? Seems like it to me. But so does "watch out for number one..."
Even if there are objective standards, we may not all agree on what they are.

Aaron Spicka · May 11, 2005, 12:00 am

There is a such thing as objective right and wrong. But its only possible if people can set aside their own personal desires and experiences and just the something for what it is.

Aaron Spicka · May 11, 2005, 12:00 am

Absolute I mean.

Runa216 · May 11, 2005, 12:25 am

what is right and what is wrong? Well, I would hate to use the bible, because no matter what culture, no matter what form of it (torah, koran) it is up for interpretation, so in the end, people will do what they want anyway.

According to The catholics, contraception is a sin, but the christians think that's okay. personally, I doubt there were such things as contraceptives when the bible was written, so I doubt there was a commandment that said "though shalt not wear a rubber!" the message was that every sperm is sacred, and quite franky, I take this to mean that any sperm can create a great person. it's like saying all bugs are sacred.

I could go into detail on the contraceptives stuff, but I'd just be quoting george carlin anyway, so it's not worth it.

my point simply being is that "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't like it, I'm going to kill you."

that's not how I think, but that's how the world works. you know what my version of right and wrong is? I think it's right to help, to be caring, and to try to avoid violence. I think every individual is allowed to their own beliefs, no matter what they are, and so long as you do not do another harm, then you are allowed to even practice those beliefs. I think it's wrong to start violence, and I think it's wrong to try to push my beliefs on others, or for anyone else to. I live my life as I see fit, and that means I'm always helping others, and I never fight. try to tell me that's bad.

Runa

May 9, 2005, 06:17 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Aaron Spicka paradox Posts: 44	What is right and What is wrong? I've always believed that everone had the same sense of right and wrong. That only applies when one sets aside all personal biases, desires, and conditioning. But as time has gone on I have started to question wether that is really true or not. What does everythink about this? Is there different standards of right and wrong? If so, why are some things acceptable at one time or situation and not acceptable in another? :rolleyes:

May 10, 2005, 02:08 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Sonart It's simply logical Location: San Diego Posts: 4,316	I make graven images for a living. I work for a large, very well known computer game company. Our best selling game is a role-playing fantasy game involving elves, dwarves, wizards, dragons, etc. etc. As an illustrator working with marketing and web presence, I create images of many characters, including a variety of fantasy gods and demigods who inhabit and influence the digital world of the game. This is strictly forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Am I right or wrong? Taken a step further, strict Muslim teaching forbids creating artistic representations of any living thing because "only God (Allah) can create man and living things." Again, am I right or wrong? . I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it

May 10, 2005, 04:27 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	OK, Lycan. Not contesting that some changes have occurred. But are you saying that no standards exist? May I do to you and yours as I wish, only prevented by what you personally can do to stop me? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

May 9, 2005, 06:58 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Charles Molten Ash Location: London Posts: 59	Morally speaking i beleive when we are born we are blank slates. Actions or events have no defining or perceptible quality that makes them definitively 'good' or 'bad'.... Youre not giving us mutch to work on here!

May 9, 2005, 08:06 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Aaron Spicka paradox Posts: 44	Sorry about that. For example, what someone doesn't know won't hurt them. It deceptive and in a way dishonest I guess. But than again if something bad doesn't come from it upon that person or even anyone else, is it still wrong when there isn't a repercusion?

May 9, 2005, 08:06 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	Right, and wrong differ widely among the different cultures. Try going to India, and locating a Burger King.

May 9, 2005, 09:48 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Libertarian Thats Me Location: Where Am I Again?!?! Posts: 177	Morals are conditioned and NOT absolute. Right and wrong are always changing. Look back one hundread years. There has been much change. It also was at one time seen that is was totally wrong for a woman to even talk in front of her husbands guyfriends. Now, as we see it, women have every right men do. So as this one example shows, right and wrong are not absolute.

May 10, 2005, 10:12 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Aaron Spicka paradox Posts: 44	Just because it wasn't socially acceptable for a women to speak in front of her husbands guyfriends doesn't mean its wrong. There are absolutes.

May 11, 2005, 12:00 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Aaron Spicka paradox Posts: 44	There is a such thing as objective right and wrong. But its only possible if people can set aside their own personal desires and experiences and just the something for what it is.

May 11, 2005, 12:00 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Aaron Spicka paradox Posts: 44	Absolute I mean.

May 11, 2005, 12:25 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Runa216 Igneous Magma Posts: 208	what is right and what is wrong? Well, I would hate to use the bible, because no matter what culture, no matter what form of it (torah, koran) it is up for interpretation, so in the end, people will do what they want anyway. According to The catholics, contraception is a sin, but the christians think that's okay. personally, I doubt there were such things as contraceptives when the bible was written, so I doubt there was a commandment that said "though shalt not wear a rubber!" the message was that every sperm is sacred, and quite franky, I take this to mean that any sperm can create a great person. it's like saying all bugs are sacred. I could go into detail on the contraceptives stuff, but I'd just be quoting george carlin anyway, so it's not worth it. my point simply being is that "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't like it, I'm going to kill you." that's not how I think, but that's how the world works. you know what my version of right and wrong is? I think it's right to help, to be caring, and to try to avoid violence. I think every individual is allowed to their own beliefs, no matter what they are, and so long as you do not do another harm, then you are allowed to even practice those beliefs. I think it's wrong to start violence, and I think it's wrong to try to push my beliefs on others, or for anyone else to. I live my life as I see fit, and that means I'm always helping others, and I never fight. try to tell me that's bad. Runa