Innate wrongness

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist An innate wrong is something that is absolutely wrong regardless of the culture or intersubjective frame of reference. I can't give examples because there is no such thing. For instance, murder might be wrong no matter what in the cultures you mentioned, but in some tribal culture, warranted murder is often okay. And as for the so-called axiomatic right to self-determination, even your culture denies it when it employs the death penalty.

No offense, but you don't truly know what my culture is. Many people I deal with daily consider me totally lacking in culture.

Right, cultures and individuals give justifications for violating innate natural laws, but the fact that people equivocate does not change the truth.

What vice or innate wrongness would you like to make appear right?

Quote by: Epistemologist I know that saying I'm a puppet doesn't make it so. I just said that to illustrate that simply saying you have an inherent right of self-determination doesn't make it so. It's only axiomatic within your culture, although even then it's questionable because of that example I previously mentioned.

Axioms are undeniably true all the time.

Quote by: Epistemologist Also, I don't see why you brought up that issue of God/Gods here; it's not explicitly relevant.

Because I have to understand where you are coming from to debate you. I understand that people change their views over time and sometimes suddenly and radically, but if you aren't reasonably consistent from one thread to the next a few days later, most people will have a hard time relating to you. They'll never really be certain what it is you are saying.

Quote by: Epistemologist Ultimately, I conclude that there is no innate/absolute wrong, although some cultures may share the same wrongs; there are, however, absolute wrongs within the cultures themselves, although in the broader frame of reference those wrongs are simply subjective.

And to me that sounds like equivocation or a flat-out contradictory statement.

Quote by: Epistemologist I have made up my mind.

I didn't mean to make you mad.

I

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef No offense, but you don't truly know what my culture is. Many people I deal with daily consider me totally lacking in culture. Right, cultures and individuals give justifications for violating innate natural laws, but the fact that people equivocate does not change the truth. What vice or innate wrongness would you like to make appear right?

Well, by "innate wrong" I mean something that is absolutely wrong. There is no absolute wrong that we can truly know. However, each culture approximates what's innately wrong, and thus we get each culture with its own set of wrongs. Sometimes, some cultures share the same wrongs. Let's assume, for instance, that all cultures consider murder wrong. Would that make it innately wrong?

No, it wouldn't, because that might qualify as as argumentum ad populum. The innate wrong is part of the perfect ideal, which is perhaps what John Hick would call the Divine Truth. We don't know it, but we approximate it. And even if we all have the same conception of wrong, that conception is not necessarily the innate, perfect conception.

Quote by: Blef Axioms are undeniably true all the time.

I know, but just because you say it's axiomatic doesn't make it so.

Of course, for your culture (assuming you have one ), the self-determination might be axiomatic and murder might be absolutely wrong. That is, every member of your culture will see murder and see it as wrong no matter what.

However, if we were to say murder is absolutely wrong, we would have to remain within only the intersubjective frame of reference of all cultures that say murder is wrong. If we were to broaden our intersubjective frame of reference to perhaps include all humans and thus all cultures, we wouldn't be able to absolutely say that murder is wrong because there might be a culture that approves of murder.

In the perspective of a member of a tribal culture where murder is okay, your culture's belief that murder is wrong is not just a subjective statement but also absolutely wrong, because in his/her culture murder is absolutely right.

Quote by: Blef Because I have to understand where you are coming from to debate you. I understand that people change their views over time and sometimes suddenly and radically, but if you aren't reasonably consistent from one thread to the next a few days later, most people will have a hard time relating to you. They'll never really be certain what it is you are saying.

I should note, though, that I haven't changed my views. The belief in the existence/non-existence of God is intersubjectively true just as ethical systems are intersubjectively established.

Quote by: Blef And to me that sounds like equivocation or a flat-out contradictory statement.

It's not. Maybe I should explain the concept of intersubjectivity in a nutshell.

For example, we couldn't objectively say that Hitler's actions were wrong i.e. we wouldn't necessarily be making an absolute ethical calculus. Our statement would be subjective in the broader context. However, if we were within a certain frame of reference e.g. within anti-Nazi Western culture, we could absolutely say that Hitler's actions were wrong because that's the truth for the culture per se. Then, we would intersubjectively say that Hitler's actions were wrong. We could also go to a different intersubjective frame of reference e.g. Nazi Germany, where Hitler's actions were absolutely correct.

Quote by: Blef I didn't mean to make you mad.

I was quite floundered.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Blef A society that overcomes such wrongness doesn't make it not wrong by doing so. I presume you agree with that since you agree that murder is innately wrong. State-sponsored homicide (human sacrifice, death penalty) are murder, so I agree with you. What other examples or specific cultures did you have in mind? I might want to add to my list of institutionalized atrocities.

The Mongol Horde

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Captain Chaos The Mongol Horde

The Mongol Horde killed other cultures for cultural expansion. I think murder is killing within a culture, although often it's an individualist vs. a member of the culture per se. Then again, I think ancient Babylon under Hammurabi had "an eye for an eye" justice, where punishments were delivered in about the same magnitude as the offense. If you accuse someone of a big crime without evidence, for instance, you'd be executed. But then again, that's just the death penalty again. I should also allude to some cannibalistic groups.

[Jack]

I would submit the term wrong requires clarification. If you mean wrong in a moral sense, then the morals of each culture dictate wrongness, and it cannot be considered innate. If you mean wrong in the sense of an action that is absolutely detrimental to the individual performing it, an action without any redeeming value whatsoever, I'd say only suicide comes close.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, the video is unavailable. However, I've already seen "The Aristocrats", so I'm probably not missing anything.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Isherwood I would submit the term wrong requires clarification. If you mean wrong in a moral sense, then the morals of each culture dictate wrongness, and it cannot be considered innate. If you mean wrong in the sense of an action that is absolutely detrimental to the individual performing it, an action without any redeeming value whatsoever, I'd say only suicide comes close.

I think it's Socrates who said that no person will knowingly hurt him/herself. So, even one committing suicide may find that it's a beneficial or optimal action at least from his/her perspective; although the body experiences detriment, the body is not necessarily the integral element of that person's being. I question whether there is any action that is absolutely detrimental to the individual performing it.

Even if you analyze actions to find one, you'd be doing it within the intersubjective frame of reference of your own culture, so we still arrive at the first meaning of the term "wrong." This even applies to those without an explicit culture, the selfish individualists, as I call them, who may evaluate their own suicide as good.

Quote by: Compugasm Hmm, the video is unavailable. However, I've already seen "The Aristocrats", so I'm probably not missing anything.

For anyone who hasn't heard of "The Aristocrats," here is a version of the joke. Beware! It's quite extreme. :(

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Compugasm Hmm, the video is unavailable. However, I've already seen "The Aristocrats", so I'm probably not missing anything.

Let's just say that it involved piglets licking a woman's coochie, and suckling her breasts.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Epistemologist The Mongol Horde killed other cultures for cultural expansion. I think murder is killing within a culture, although often it's an individualist vs. a member of the culture per se. Then again, I think ancient Babylon under Hammurabi had "an eye for an eye" justice, where punishments were delivered in about the same magnitude as the offense. If you accuse someone of a big crime without evidence, for instance, you'd be executed. But then again, that's just the death penalty again. I should also allude to some cannibalistic groups.

I am pretty sure that killing for the purpose of conquering should be considered murder.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am pretty sure that killing for the purpose of conquering should be considered murder.

If we change our intersubjective frame of reference from to Mongol culture to the human species in general, then yes, that would qualify as murder in my opinion. But then again, this is just an argument over the semantics of the issue, and isn't really a big deal.

We can still say that innate wrongs are unknown, although even doing that would be futile, since we'd still evaluate wrongs based on our culture's absolutes.

[Occam]

Isherwood put his finger on the crux of the confusion. We must define precisely what we mean by "wrong". Each person and each society has a list of thing he/she/they consider wrong. In general, these are moral wrongs.

Based on moral wrong, the question could be, is there any behavior that EVERY past, present, and even possible society would find morally wrong? As we've seen from the prior posts just about anything that was mentioned was acceptable in some society. So the answer in regard to moral wrong is, no, there are no innately moral wrongs.

I suggest that activities that damage or destroy an individual (and his/her progeny if s/he values them) or a society might be considered wrong. Suicide to punish others is probably wrong. Suicide to eliminate intractable pain or to remove a burden from one's family may not be wrong. A society deciding to conquer another society for it's benefit may be acceptable, but if the attacked society is much stronger than anticipated and wipes out the aggressors, that was a wrong action on the part of the first society.

Occam

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Occam Each person and each society has a list of thing he/she/they consider wrong. In general, these are moral wrongs.

Or rather, the definition of "moral", because it is the distinction between right and wrong. Which means God's Law is the ultimate Moral Law. I do not belive he laid out such laws for us to follow. Because God only wants your love, and does not choose sides of righteousness. Only man draws that line in the sand, but God receives love reguardless. Well, that's the best I can put together the puzzle.

[Blef]

Quote by: Compugasm Or rather, the definition of "moral", because it is the distinction between right and wrong. Which means God's Law is the ultimate Moral Law.

That dovetails nicely with Epistemologist's contention that there are no innate wrongs. Since we know there are no gods, it follows that there are no ultimate moral laws. I think it's very clever of you to express that idea by means of a positive affirmation of a popular delusion. Very clever.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Blef Very clever.

I still left open the possibility for God, did I not? He left no moral laws, but did make ones which govern the universe.

I assumed God needs "love" from us. If he doesn't, then my point is moot. But still, moral law comes from men, not God. What I dislike, are assumptions made by men about what God requires of us. No ham on Sunday, WTF?? Quite possibly, God needs nothing from us at all. Men (including Jesus) try to speak for God, and fail every time.

I relate it to comic book characters. Too us, a comic is flat. To a 2 dimensional character, the world defined in the panels of a comic book, is very real. But, comic book characters could not exist outside the book, except as thoughts in the creators head. They couldn't possibly understand life in 3 dimensions.

If there is a God, he is in a place beyond our comprehension, understanding, explanation, or proof. Therefore, it's acceptable to me to believe God does exist. However, what I do not accept is anyone who claims to speak for God, has knowledge of his will, do his work, or spread his word.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If the human species was put on trial, I would hate to be the defense attorney.

Because our responsibility is measured by the degree of choice we have.

I have a feeling that a judge of our species would find us guilty of crimes against the Universe which doesn`t include only man kind, but all living creatures.

If the human species were your client, CC, you`d probably lose the court battle due to our capacity to recognize, choose and change but our refusal to do so. If on the other hand a wolf or sheep were your client, you could argue lack of capacity to choose and discriminate and therefore win the case on that point.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef That dovetails nicely with Epistemologist's contention that there are no innate wrongs. Since we know there are no gods, it follows that there are no ultimate moral laws. I think it's very clever of you to express that idea by means of a positive affirmation of a popular delusion. Very clever.

I say that the true innate wrongs may exist, but we won't ever actually know them. Just as we won't ever actually know what metaphysical beliefs are true. However, within our cultures, we establish absolute wrongs and absolute metaphysical beliefs. So, if I said that there are no innate wrongs, I meant to say there are no objectively apparent innate wrongs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Common threads, are what define right and wrong in any society.

Our most basic common threads?

We all want a choice in what we believe spiritually, for ourselves.
We all want a choice to live as WE see fit, economically and socially.
We all want our voice to matter.
We all want our thoughts to be heard.
We all want a chance to be prosperous, in whatever value system we adopt.
We all want to pursue OUR form of happiness.

This is something ALL people have in common.

The sooner we realize this, and FORCE our governments to respect it via law and re-structure of government, the sooner we can get on with life, and off of war.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We all want a...

What defines "we?" Is it the majority of the general public?

And how do you define "want" or more specifically, what are the "wants" based on? Values?

"Values" have changed throughout history and evolve over time. They are not static.

[Osborn F Enready]

SHW said: What defines "we?" Is it the majority of the general public?

As humans, with reason and intellect, an ability for logic, and a means to put thought into action through labor and ability.

SHW said: And how do you define "want" or more specifically, what are the "wants" based on? Values?

Individual values, and necessity. We all desire to be our own property, even if it is only to be viewed and perceived as noble for giving it away to a cause WE approve of. We have the power of choice, by reason and logic, compassion and intellect.

SHW said: "Values" have changed throughout history and evolve over time. They are not static.

Values to the collective are skewed by government structure, and what ends up being a government "filter".

Values to the individual, essential values as I mentioned, are something universally almost ALL people share, hence, governments should not be allowed by people to infringe on those areas, since it can only be done by force, and this force for these reasons has over history been in the servance of tyranny, unjust power, greed and empire.

There is no way the collective can reflect the individuals, in a world of 6,562,261,835 people..... nor can it in a nation of 300,000,000 people.

That is why government should not be allowed, universally to infringe upon those basic rights, we as humans, necessitate as individuals.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Occam Isherwood put his finger on the crux of the confusion. We must define precisely what we mean by "wrong". Each person and each society has a list of thing he/she/they consider wrong. In general, these are moral wrongs.

I have to disagree. Moral wrongs not only come from the society which makes a list, but from a natural law in general. I say this because while societies may have their own list of what they consider wrong, ultimately that list seems very similar when put in general comparison.

This is because there is some form of Natural Law governing the Universe which poses ethical implications on us that, as human beings, our conscience cannot ignore. If this were not true, then I should never have any eithical qualms about the actions of others, nor should they have any of the same for my actions. But moreover, if each society has a seperate list or set of what they consider wrong, from where does this list come from? While a brother and sister may behave in different ways, they come from the same mother and thus share a common fellowship in family events. Much the same Earth and Mars may have entirely different compositions, but in the greater spectrum of the Universe, they belong to the same galaxy and operate under much of the same Universal Laws.

My point is that while society may have certain lists of what to consider right and wrong, those lists share a common basis with the fundemental preseves of Natural Law. Though on face we cannot see how Action A is similar to Action B, we see that they are from the same Natural Law and we uphold and reguard Action A with the same adherence and respect as Action B.

When we realize this, then we realize that indeed there are innate wrongs. For instance, let us assume the Natural Law demands we honor one another. While here in America we decide that Honor means to pay respects and tributes to those older or wiser than us, those in Japan feel that Honor means to give prestige and secure certain status of a family.

Now the actions of doing so may be entirely different, however each honors the same preserve of the Moral Law with an ends to reach Honor. Now I do not believe that some society can come along and change the rules and decide not to follow at least in some way this code of Honor with whatever action they choose, because by the society's actions, they themselves also hold up this code in the very same way. Thus if ever a society did not uphold this way of honor, we would consider it, innately wrong because of a violation of universal law.