How would you define 'wrong' ?

MotherFirefly · Aug 24, 2016

How would you define 'wrong/bad' in terms of general morality?

Obviously not everyone will agree, as opinions on the 'gray area' vary, but I am not looking for arguments merely ideas and opinions, religiously based or otherwise.

Can something that happens between two consenting parties ever be considered 'wrong'?
Why or why not?

DogmaHunter · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
How would you define 'wrong/bad' in terms of general morality?

Obviously not everyone will agree, as opinions on the 'gray area' vary, but I am not looking for arguments merely ideas and opinions, religiously based or otherwise.

Entire books could be written as an answer to that question, so the short answers given here are bound to fall short and / or fail to cover everything.

In a nutshell, I'ld say that "bad" is everything that has a negative impact on the well-being of sentient beings and/or violates their individual rights.

Can something that happens between two consenting parties ever be considered 'wrong'?

I'ld have to answer that with "yes".

Why or why not?

Because the actions between 2 consenting parties might have a negative impact on the overall well-being of other sentient beings.

Assuming that the action in question between the 2 consenting parties have no impact (negative OR positive) on the overall well-being of other sentient beings, then no.

Considering your choice of words, it's probably safe to assume that you are talking about what happens between 2 people behind closed doors in a bedroom.

If one of them (or both) is cheating, then it would be wrong.
If they are both single, or are a couple, then I don't see how it could be wrong.

quatona · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
How would you define 'wrong/bad' in terms of general morality?

I´m not exactly a moralist, but if hard-pressed i would define "wrong" as "detrimental to the values it´s meant to serve" and "bad" as "detrimental to values the speaking persons holds in high regards".

Can something that happens between two consenting parties ever be considered 'wrong'?
Why or why not?

See above.

MotherFirefly · Aug 24, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Entire books could be written as an answer to that question, so the short answers given here are bound to fall short and / or fail to cover everything.

In a nutshell, I'ld say that "bad" is everything that has a negative impact on the well-being of sentient beings and/or violates their individual rights.

I'ld have to answer that with "yes".

Because the actions between 2 consenting parties might have a negative impact on the overall well-being of other sentient beings.

Assuming that the action in question between the 2 consenting parties have no impact (negative OR positive) on the overall well-being of other sentient beings, then no.

Considering your choice of words, it's probably safe to assume that you are talking about what happens between 2 people behind closed doors in a bedroom.

If one of them (or both) is cheating, then it would be wrong.
If they are both single, or are a couple, then I don't see how it could be wrong.

Thanks for your reply!
I agree that you could go into very great detail about the concept of 'wrong' as we know the word in a moral sense.

So do you believe that, assuming no other parties are involved, that an action between the said two parties could never be considered immoral as long as both sides are consenting?

And 'interpersonal relations' is for sure one example, though there are others. If the action itself is important to your answer feel free to be more specific.

I do find it interesting, and not saying this applies to you because it may not, but to some people it really is important what the said action is.
Of course, humans will obviously have bias based on personal experience.

timewerx · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
Can something that happens between two consenting parties ever be considered 'wrong'?
Why or why not?

Whoever sides with ignorance is wrong.

The only thing that is wrong in this Universe is choosing ignorance.

Knowledge is the light that uncovers the wrongs in our Universe.

Choosing ignorance is what keeps us in the dark.

An evil person will choose to be ignorant because knowledge, the truth will uncover his evil deeds and the "convenient lies" he believed in. Therefore, Knowledge and Truth is not in the best interests of an evil person. There is no truth in evil people.

There is no truth in our evil world.

MotherFirefly · Aug 24, 2016

quatona said:
I´m not exactly a moralist, but if hard-pressed i would define "wrong" as "detrimental to the values it´s meant to serve" and "bad" as "detrimental to values the speaking persons holds in high regards".

See above.

Thanks for the reply!
Feel free to elaborate with examples. Perhaps of something you find wrong that others may not? Or vice versa?

MotherFirefly · Aug 24, 2016

timewerx said:
Whoever sides with ignorance is wrong.

The only thing that is wrong in this Universe is choosing ignorance.

Knowledge is the light that uncovers the wrongs in our Universe.

Choosing ignorance is what keeps us in the dark.

An evil person will choose to be ignorant because knowledge, the truth will uncover his evil deeds. Therefore, Knowledge and Truth is not in the best interests of an evil person. There is no truth in evil people.

There is no truth in our evil world.

Hey timewerx

So, you are saying truth is good and ignorance is evil?

What then is truth and what is ignorance?

How would you describe an action as being of truth or of ignorance?
Since bedroom time is something people feel passionately one way or another for, are there circumstances when that could be defined as true/ignorant?
What are these circumstances?
What fuels your opinion?

quatona · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
Thanks for the reply!
Feel free to elaborate with examples. Perhaps of something you find wrong that others may not? Or vice versa?

Here´s an example: Traditional upbringing of children by means of reward and punishment doesn´t seem to serve any of the goals and values I have in the upbringing of children. I find it "bad".
As to persons who use these methods, I don´t know if they are just mistaken about the effects they have on the child ("wrong") or if they actually hold those values and goals which these methods actually serve.

Noxot · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
How would you define 'wrong/bad' in terms of general morality?

Obviously not everyone will agree, as opinions on the 'gray area' vary, but I am not looking for arguments merely ideas and opinions, religiously based or otherwise.

that which is against God and thus against his children.

MotherFirefly said:
Can something that happens between two consenting parties ever be considered 'wrong'?
Why or why not?

yes because insane people seem to make things bad for themselves and others and so there is room for the possibility that they can agree with one another to something that might be bad. or has a single person never done anything they felt like doing that ended up being evil? since it is possible for 1 it is possible for 2.

if I existed all alone or with one other then there would be less variables. God seems to have in some ways set himself up as a standard for what is good. he would always act as a kind of stabilizing force for all the souls he gave birth to especially since souls seem to in some ways be finite.

anything against love is against our very self since we are all made out of love. what is good is God and God is the Trinity. anything outside of the Trinity can't be good because all things were formed by the Trinity. anything less than God is sin.

timewerx · Aug 24, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
Hey timewerx

So, you are saying truth is good and ignorance is evil?

Hello to you too Absolutely. The truth drives change for good.

Whenever someone is making a mistake or breaking the law or harming anyone, ignorance is always involved. Being insensitive shows a lack of empathy (ignorance of what others feel or may feel). Ignorance of what is good for everyone and ignorance of the future consequences of present actions.

When someone defends what is wrong, again, ignorance is involved. Someone who does that is believing a lie.

Anyone how hides from the truth or do not wish to find out the truth for the truth might tell them they are wrong is choosing ignorance.

Ignorance is why we kill, inflict pain on others, blindly do what everybody else is doing even if it is foolish, and destroy our planet....Because if we bear the truth, we won't be doing those things. Evil cannot exist in the light of the Truth.

How would you describe an action as being of truth or of ignorance?

An action being of truth is not quick to judge, not quick to action without thinking, careful to consider all perspectives, carefully dig for facts, unbiased, does not believe anything outright until passing unbiased scrutiny, sensitive of what others feel, strives to see the big picture, make plans that will stand the test of time, and finally, always have time to do these things for the sake of the truth.

Proverbs 14:15 - The simple (those who chooses ignorance) believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps

An action of ignorance are the opposite of these things.

Since bedroom time is something people feel passionately one way or another for, are there circumstances when that could be defined as true/ignorant?

We require our sleep to function normally during the day. Feeling passionately for another as long as consensual helps mitigate stress. It is of truth if it makes us better, but of ignorance if it blinds us to other things.

What are these circumstances?
What fuels your opinion?

Being alive for more than thirty years, that is my conclusion of what is right and wrong.

There are no absolute do's and don't's, no absolute objectivity unless you know everything - omniscient like God.

But there are absolute right and wrong actions. The right action is the pursuit of truth, no matter how dark and ugly it will take you (a poetic irony). The wrong action is to choose ignorance however insignificant it may seem.

Wide is the road which leads to ignorance because it's easy and it's what everybody is doing. The path to the light (the Truth) is narrow and only few ever finds it.

jayem · Aug 24, 2016

I'm generally a casuist. That's one who believes that ethical decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. So, stated most simply, something is wrong if it causes more harm than good in a given situation. That doesn't mean it is always ruled out. Sometimes an action may be wrong, but not acting, or acting differently, may result in a greater degree of harm over good. It's ultimately a case-specific determination.

DogmaHunter · Aug 25, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
So do you believe that, assuming no other parties are involved, that an action between the said two parties could never be considered immoral as long as both sides are consenting?

I'm unwilling to make sweeping statements about such vaguely described "actions".
It would depend on the nature of the action.

And 'interpersonal relations' is for sure one example, though there are others. If the action itself is important to your answer feel free to be more specific.

Like I said, I'm not willing to make sweeping statements concerning vaguely described concepts. Eventhough I can't immediatly come up with an example of such an action which would be "wrong", I'm not going to commit to a statement saying that there are no such actions.

I do find it interesting, and not saying this applies to you because it may not, but to some people it really is important what the said action is.

How is that interesting?? It seems pretty much common sense, when talking about moral value judgements.

People aren't good or bad by themselves. Actions are.
Morality isn't about what people are, it's about what people do.

When Adolf Hitler was brushing his teeth, he wasn't being immoral....

So, I don't know what you find so interesting about that..

Dave-W · Aug 25, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
How would you define 'wrong/bad' in terms of general morality?

disobeying God.

MotherFirefly · Aug 25, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
How is that interesting?? It seems pretty much common sense, when talking about moral value judgements.

People aren't good or bad by themselves. Actions are.
Morality isn't about what people are, it's about what people do.

When Adolf Hitler was brushing his teeth, he wasn't being immoral....

So, I don't know what you find so interesting about that..

I like you because you always make my open-minded, idea churning threads challenging.

I agree with you that it is definitely about the actions.

What I meant was, it is interesting how varied the responses you get when discussing a specific action.
Even if you set a ground rule of 'two parties affected, and two parties only. Ever. Period.' Many people will have many answers.

I find it interesting because I find human psychology interesting, and because of that, I enjoy pondering the notion that we are all almost brainwashed (by bias, experience, people, society, media, whatever. Lack of a better word, I trust you get what I mean) all of our lives to create this wide difference of opinions on what we find wrong.
Almost seems like we create these moral codes in our head to suit our own agendas.

Yet, there are some things that the majority of the sane members of society will always agree is wrong. Such as innocent murder, or taking advantage of someone sexually, or domestic abuse of any kind.

I just find humans interesting is all.

MotherFirefly · Aug 25, 2016

DaveW-Ohev said:
disobeying God.

Hi thanks for your input!

Following a benevolent being, who's overall purpose is as a power for the better of mankind, is always a good guideline for your moral compass.

In my opinion, however, it is important to always keep His Love at the center of your moral decisions. That is, don't let doctrine overshadow compassion.

MotherFirefly · Aug 25, 2016

jayem said:
I'm generally a casuist. That's one who believes that ethical decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. So, stated most simply, something is wrong if it causes more harm than good in a given situation. That doesn't mean it is always ruled out. Sometimes an action may be wrong, but not acting, or acting differently, may result in a greater degree of harm over good. It's ultimately a case-specific determination.

Hello!

I think that is a very straightforward, thus could be a very wise way to go about things. Simple and to the point is never a bad thing.

Since leading your life under that code, have you ever found yourself in a position where a specific 'case' was not so black and white?
That is, an ethical dilema? lol

Feel free to share experiences if you feel so inclined.

Church2u2 · Aug 25, 2016

Well I think murder and abusing kids,the elderly and animals is wrong.Kids especially babies and toddlers can't defend themselves and neither can the elderly when they're bedridden or otherwise incapable. Now some animals can defend themselves.We have the death penalty in my home state and while it might be true that some crimes are worthy of death I still say let the guilty party languish in prison because the time might give them a chance to repent.

MotherFirefly · Aug 25, 2016

quatona said:
Here´s an example: Traditional upbringing of children by means of reward and punishment doesn´t seem to serve any of the goals and values I have in the upbringing of children. I find it "bad".
As to persons who use these methods, I don´t know if they are just mistaken about the effects they have on the child ("wrong") or if they actually hold those values and goals which these methods actually serve.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by 'raising a child on reward and punishment'?

Also, if you strongly disagree, what do you believe to be the best way to raise a child?

quatona · Aug 25, 2016

MotherFirefly said:
Would you mind explaining what you mean by 'raising a child on reward and punishment'?

Sorry, that was indeed unclear. I meant: using methods of reward and punishment when raising a child.

Also, if you strongly disagree, what do you believe to be the best way to raise a child?

I don´t think this is a thread on child raising. You just asked me for an example my definitions, and I gave it to you. Even though the paradigms of child raising is an extremely important topic to me, this doesn´t seem to be the thread to discuss the particularities.
If you are genuinely interested in my opinion on the matter, feel free to send me a PM or create a new thread and invite me to participate.

MotherFirefly · Aug 25, 2016

Church2u2 said:
Well I think murder and abusing kids,the elderly and animals is wrong.Kids especially babies and toddlers can't defend themselves and neither can the elderly when they're bedridden or otherwise incapable. Now some animals can defend themselves.We have the death penalty in my home state and while it might be true that some crimes are worthy of death I still say let the guilty party languish in prison because the time might give them a chance to repent.

Hi, thanks for the reply!

I am sure you agree, but I believe abuse of any kind is wrong, regardless of race, gender, age, species.
However, I agree it takes a deeper amount of atrociousness in your soul to knowingly abuse someone who is innocent and cannot defend themselves.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

How would you define 'wrong' ?

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

anarchist personalist

the village i--o--t--

Naturalist

Code Monkey

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency