Absolute Right and Wrong?

[Aaron Spicka]

Right and Wrong. To me its as simple as that, not any well...kinda...sorta, when myself or anyone else looks at any given event or situation I am very sure that they will be able to see the difference. Like if I were to try and argue that murdering a stanger was right because in murdering that person I would save anothers life than I'd be an idiot. Yes it does save a life but it doesn't make taking of a human life right. Or if One was to witness a driver run into another car and than take off. If that person doesn't say anything to owner of the car about who hit the car than it is wrong to let that person get away with damaging the property. I have talked with others on the site about wether absolutes for right and wrong exist and am curious to see if anyone has a situation where it is truely in the gray area and can be argued equally either way.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Aaron Spicka Right and Wrong. To me its as simple as that, not any well...kinda...sorta, when myself or anyone else looks at any given event or situation I am very sure that they will be able to see the difference. Like if I were to try and argue that murdering a stanger was right because in murdering that person I would save anothers life than I'd be an idiot. Yes it does save a life but it doesn't make taking of a human life right. Or if One was to witness a driver run into another car and than take off. If that person doesn't say anything to owner of the car about who hit the car than it is wrong to let that person get away with damaging the property. I have talked with others on the site about wether absolutes for right and wrong exist and am curious to see if anyone has a situation where it is truely in the gray area and can be argued equally either way.

Scenario 1)A stranger enters your home and your child's bedroom. You enter the child's room and see them being assaulted and take action. You kill the stranger.

Scenario 2)You see a powerful country you love committing atrocities and lying to people you love. You see good people being brainwashed and try to show them the truth. They declare you the enemy and continue to support and assist those committing atrocities. You find out the real enemy is about to attack. Do you report it or let the ignorant ones meet their demise?

[Dadoo]

Fedfem-
Choice/ no choice. Scenario 1) False. I would choose to injure with controlled malice. If I kill, it is by accident and I am confident I did my 'best'.

Scenario 2) No choice. I report my knowledge. There is no division, excepting that which the other creates. Unless I report the possible dangers, I am not doing my 'best', and have only helped strengthen the illusion of enemy, in my estranged 'brothers eyes and hearts.

I agree with Aaron. Morality is a non-issue to those who needn't practice it's tenants. Once grasped, One does what is correct for the moment and scenario at hand, with deference to the intention and ignorance of the subjects involved.
For those who practice morality. Practice well and do not preach. One's own garden needs tending whilst ye' peer over neighbor's fences!.

I trust that to those to which "moral choices" exist, the freedom to err willfully.
If you believe in morality and moral behaviour, I believe you occasionally, or often break the rules. It takes one to know one! In any case, it is all irrelevant, 'eh?
Dadoo

[Starboy]

This whole concept of absolute morality is just a red herring. No one on the face of the earth who has lived any kind of life no matter what capacity be it the pope or jesus or Lincoln has been able to hold to any absolute morality. All people who have lived any kind of life have been faced with a choice that either is bad or just plain sucks and anyone who hasn't needs to wipe the milk off their upper lip.

Starboy

[Logjam]

Right and Wrong? Could we change this question to: "The Rules that we live by?"

To answer your original question breaking the "rules" is wrong and obeying them is right. This works for me. Then one might ask, "Who makes the rules?" The answer is no body makes them. They are made by society in general. Things that work morph into rules.....I guess one could argue that God made the Rules throught the Ten Commandments. This works if you want to believe that God does such things.

Certainly the Ten Commandments could form the foundation for a successful society.

But I don't think they are the only source for our rules. Rules are made after years and years of human experience. Sometimes men codify rules, but many are just handed down from father to son and mom to daughter. "Don't put your hand in the fire" is a rule. Flush after you use the toilet, is a rule. So is "be nice".

There are rules against sodomy, racism, murder, promiscuity and a myriad of other things. They are there for a good reason, and if we want our society to prosper, we should teach kids to follow them.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Starboy This whole concept of absolute morality is just a red herring. No one on the face of the earth who has lived any kind of life no matter what capacity be it the pope or jesus or Lincoln has been able to hold to any absolute morality. All people who have lived any kind of life have been faced with a choice that either is bad or just plain sucks and anyone who hasn't needs to wipe the milk off their upper lip. Starboy

So, Starboy; are you making an excuse for people to be able to break the rules of morality? Seems like you are. Aren't you saying, "People should not be held to rules that are hard to conform with?" No body said that what's right and what's easy are the same. As a matter of fact the rules are sometimes very difficult to keep. But we must, if we want our society and our culture to thrive.

Allowing people to break the rules just because they don't agree with them is a formula for cultural disaster.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam Right and Wrong? Could we change this question to: "The Rules that we live by?" To answer your original question breaking the "rules" is wrong and obeying them is right. This works for me. Then one might ask, "Who makes the rules?" The answer is no body makes them. They are made by society in general. Things that work morph into rules.....I guess one could argue that God made the Rules throught the Ten Commandments. This works if you want to believe that God does such things. Certainly the Ten Commandments could form the foundation for a successful society. But I don't think they are the only source for our rules. Rules are made after years and years of human experience. Sometimes men codify rules, but many are just handed down from father to son and mom to daughter. "Don't put your hand in the fire" is a rule. Flush after you use the toilet, is a rule. So is "be nice". There are rules against sodomy, racism, murder, promiscuity and a myriad of other things. They are there for a good reason, and if we want our society to prosper, we should teach kids to follow them.

Well the ten commandments are a bit dangerous for society to be successful. Controlled yes, but no successful.

"Don't put your hand in the fire" is not a rule--it is a warning to avoid pain and injury.

The only rule that should be heeded is the golden rule---"Treat others as you want to be treated"

Even Jesus liked that one and adopted it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Logjam So, Starboy; are you making an excuse for people to be able to break the rules of morality? Seems like you are. Aren't you saying, "People should not be held to rules that are hard to conform with?" No body said that what's right and what's easy are the same. As a matter of fact the rules are sometimes very difficult to keep. But we must, if we want our society and our culture to thrive.

I said nothing of the kind. What I said is that life doesn't present itself in a nice little package that can be boiled down into absolutes. To have such a view of life would require a vantage point on life that we just do not possess and arguing about absolutes makes as much sense as arguing how many angels can fit on the head of the pin.

Allowing people to break the rules just because they don't agree with them is a formula for cultural disaster.

I am not allowing anybody to break anything. What I am saying is that a person that lives any kind of life will most likely find themselves in a situation where they will break the rules; they will know that they are breaking the rules, they will do it on purpose because from their vantage point they are making the most moral choice. The idea that there is some absolute choice is just nonsense.

Starboy

[Aaron Spicka]

I'm trying to distinguish between right and wrong. Not what the laws or rules state or what is most beneficial to a person. If a person were to be harming my child I would do something to save my child from harm. If I kill that person in an attempt to protect my child, hold on stay with me, DOES IT MAKE IT RIGHT TO KILL THAT PERSON? NO. Is it the smartest, most beneficail, compasionate, and almost a completely selfless act? YES. In the world we are all blessed and cursed to live in we can make the decision to decide at one time to make the morally right choice or morally wrong choice in a given situation. Yet when we choose to convence ourselves that one wrong action becomes right when it is for good we are decieving ourselves. That is why everyone has a different view on what is acceptable and what is not because everyone compromises to a different extent. I sure as hec am not perfect and cannot say that I do the right thing all the time because like everyone else who lives on planet earth I must compromise in order to save the things that are most prescious to me. I just wanted to bring this "right and wrong" idea to peoples attention and to find out if it in fact truely is possible that there exists absolute right and wrong. With all religious beliefs and personal biases set aside I still believe that there is.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Starboy I I am not allowing anybody to break anything. What I am saying is that a person that lives any kind of life will most likely find themselves in a situation where they will break the rules; they will know that they are breaking the rules, they will do it on purpose because from their vantage point they are making the most moral choice. The idea that there is some absolute choice is just nonsense. Starboy

If it's sometimes best to break the rules then the rule is not well thought out. I suggest that breaking the rules is almost always bad/wrong. Indeed somethings are always bad. Simplistic you say? I'd say it's more simplistic to say that it's okay to break the rules if the need arrises to do so.

We need order to run an effective society. Order comes from following the rules.....and by the way. Using your logic, a stock broker could break the rules to make more money for his clients......thus we have ENRON.

It's always best to follow the rules. They are there for a reason. Sure you can break some and maybe survive. You can jay walk for years, until you are run over; just ask Margaret Mitchell. You can cheat at school until you have to take the test.

Sure, I've broken a rule from time to time, but I always know that I'm wrong, and I really try to adhere to them. I don't poach. I don't trespass. I don't speed, I don't drink and drive.

Nor should anyone else.

Lastly you are "allowing people to break anything". You are saying that if you deem it correct that you are justified in breaking the rules......It does depend upon the circumstances; but, in general rule breaking should be held at the bare minimum.

[Logjam]

Quote by: fedfem Well the ten commandments are a bit dangerous for society to be successful. Controlled yes, but no successful. Huh? "Don't put your hand in the fire" is not a rule--it is a warning to avoid pain and injury. Children don't know the difference between a warning and a rule. The only rule that should be heeded is the golden rule---"Treat others as you want to be treated" That's okay. But what about jay walking? No one is harmed but yourself if you are run over. Even Jesus liked that one and adopted it.

I doubt that Jesus would argue that we should ignor the Ten Commandments.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Logjam I doubt that Jesus would argue that we should ignor the Ten Commandments.

Funny thing that. Many claim that was why Jesus supposedly came to earth. To replace the old covenant. The contract based on the ten+ commandments was supposed to be null and void. It was replace with a new covenent based on the offer you can't refuse. The Christians don't exactly state it in those exact terms but that is what it is.

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Aaron Spicka Like if I were to try and argue that murdering a stanger was right because in murdering that person I would save anothers life than I'd be an idiot. Yes it does save a life but it doesn't make taking of a human life right. Or if One was to witness a driver run into another car and than take off. If that person doesn't say anything to owner of the car about who hit the car than it is wrong to let that person get away with damaging the property.

What controversial issues! Murder and fleeing the scene. No, the ends don't justify the means. No, you can't infringe on one of our three essential rights--life, liberty, and property. At least throw something out that's a little hazier and make it easier to shoot down.

Now, on to the meat of the issue--which y'all have completely failed to address--the question is what establishes these absolutes. Where do they come from? I contend that it is impossible to establish these absolutes in such a way that many people will agree with you.

So far, I've heard religion and society. Let's go from there. Religion, you could argue, establishes stances on a set of issues. I don't think we should pretend it touches on everything. Even the Mormons squabble over a few things and they have a living prophet. Where does that put everyone else? No church has got it absolutely right. Maybe that's because "absolutely right" isn't there?

Society I think a more laughable claim than religion. Again, there is a certain set which is clearly defined, but we are so divided on so many major issues--death penalty, abortion, welfare, etc.--that I don't think we can call that absolute.

I think I did a pretty good job there. So, when we talk about absolutes, are we talking about the easy issues, like murder and drunk driving, or are we talking about the real dilemmas? Let's get deep enough that this discussion at least matters.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam I doubt that Jesus would argue that we should ignor [sic] the Ten Commandments.

Yes, I do use sic just to annoy. Now, moving on, when did we establish that Jesus was the originator of absolute morality? You can claim that, and in your faith you will always be considered right, but does absolute not mean that they transcend religious boundaries? If not, then you should say right now that this debate is limited to Christians.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Logjam We need order to run an effective society. Order comes from following the rules.....and by the way. Using your logic, a stock broker could break the rules to make more money for his clients......thus we have ENRON.

I take a more scientific approach to the problem. There has been much study in the area of social cooperation from bacterial films to herds and social groups of animals. The current thinking is based on the discovery that social groups will always have a tension between cooperators and cheaters. A cooperator is an animal or individual that works for the social welfare of everyone and a defector is someone that behaves in a way that is of most benefit to themselves with no regard to impact on the rest of the group.

Here is an interesting article on the subject that you may find very interesting:

The Economics of Fair Play

Sometimes the law is an ass in that it would prevent a person from doing something that would have greater good for the group than for him self. It is not as if powerful greedy people have not had an effect on the laws to twist them to their benefit and to screw everyone else.

Lastly you are "allowing people to break anything". You are saying that if you deem it correct that you are justified in breaking the rules......It does depend upon the circumstances; but, in general rule breaking should be held at the bare minimum.

I am not advocating that anyone break the rules. I am just stating a reality of life. All I can say is if you don’t understand it then you have not lived enough.

Starboy

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron Now, on to the meat of the issue--which y'all have completely failed to address--the question is what establishes these absolutes. Where do they come from? I contend that it is impossible to establish these absolutes in such a way that many people will agree with you.

No, I did dealt with your question earlier in this thread. The "absolutes" are the rules that we live by. Some are heaped upon us by government, these are indeed suspect rules. (such as the stop sign at a cross road in the middle of the desert; do you stop or not? I do.) Others come from our culture; lessons learned from ions of the experiences of life. The cultural rules are the rules that you learned from your folks, things like: It's wrong to marry your sister, or don't eat food that's fallen on the ground, or don't touch the stove burner, flush after use, don't throw cigarette butts in the urinal (it makes the soggy and hard to light), etc, etc..

Can the rules be changed? Sure they can; but it's hard to do. First you've got to prove that the old rule is wrong (so now you ARE going to put your hand on the stove burner?) and then make a better one that is generally accepted as better than the first.

In summery, the rules that we live by are a part of our culture created by our forefathers who gleened them from their forefathers, etc..

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam No, I did dealt with your question earlier in this thread. The "absolutes" are the rules that we live by. Some are heaped upon us by government, these are indeed suspect rules. (such as the stop sign at a cross road in the middle of the desert; do you stop or not? I do.) Others come from our culture; lessons learned from ions of the experiences of life. The cultural rules are the rules that you learned from your folks, things like: It's wrong to marry your sister, or don't eat food that's fallen on the ground, or don't touch the stove burner, flush after use, don't throw cigarette butts in the urinal (it makes the soggy and hard to light), etc, etc.. Can the rules be changed? Sure they can; but it's hard to do. First you've got to prove that the old rule is wrong (so now you ARE going to put your hand on the stove burner?) and then make a better one that is generally accepted as better than the first. In summery, the rules that we live by are a part of our culture created by our forefathers who gleened them from their forefathers, etc..

Like Prohibition?

As far as the past....I will let Thomas Jefferson answer.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148

"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

[Sonart]

Here's a perfect example of Right & Wrong being subjective...

Religious people changing views on morality of stem-cell research

--"Peggy Willocks describes herself as "a conservative, pro-life Christian in the heart of the Bible Belt," Johnson City, Tenn. So when she considered embryonic stem cell research two years ago, she found it morally repulsive.

That view changed, as it has for other religious Americans. This religious support, or lack of it, could be instrumental as Congress and President Bush grapple with a bill that would expand federal funding of medically promising embryonic stem cell research.

A Gallup poll taken in early May found that 60 percent of Americans say medical research involving stem cells from human embryos is "morally acceptable." That's up significantly from May 2002, when 52 percent held that opinion, according to Gallup research."--

.

[Logjam]

Quote by: fedfem Like Prohibition? As far as the past....I will let Thomas Jefferson answer. "The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148 "I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

Okay, I've read your quote. But it does not say that people should throw out the established rules of society and adapt ones that apply to a specific individual. It seems that you support people making rules for themselves, and screw everyone else.

What Jefferson is saying is that rules should and can be changed to meet new conditions of society. This is true.

Nor does the Jefferson quote disspell what I said earlier, which is: don't change rules unless you can prove that the old ones are false and that new ones are better. I doubt that Jefferson would argue with me.

[Logjam]

Quote by: fedfem Like Prohibition?

Ah, yes. Liberals love to show that prohibition was a terrible ammendment. But what you don't know is that prohibition reduced drinking in the US by about 90%. Most folks followed the dictates of prohibition and they quit drinking. This brought on the associated benefits of a more sober society.

Sure some didn't stop drinking and sure the bootleggers became prosperous and sure Big Al gained control of South Chicago. But that does not take away from the fact that for the most part Prohibition did stop most Americans from drinking.

I'll betcha didn't know that.