How would you define 'wrong' ?

[MotherFirefly]

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

That's fair. Thanks.

 

[Church2u2]

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.

Yes I do agree with you that abuse of any kind is wrong.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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?

As for question one. I would define wrong/bad as anything that is self centered. I base this upon my belief in Christ who commanded to love others as one loves oneself therefore to love oneself more than others is morally wrong by that standard .
As for question two the answer is obviously yes as two consenting adults could easily be engaging in activity they both expect to get more out of than they are giving.

 

[MotherFirefly]

As for question one. I would define wrong/bad as anything that is self centered. I base this upon my belief in Christ who commanded to love others as one loves oneself therefore to love oneself more than others is morally wrong by that standard .
As for question two the answer is obviously yes as two consenting adults could easily be engaging in activity they both expect to get more out of than they are giving.

Hey, thanks for replying.

So you believe that, in every circumstance, doing something for yourself is wrong?
Or do you mean to exclude more trivial matters?

I will agree with you that love is a very important atribute, perhaps the most important.

 

[bookofjade]

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?

Colour is correct.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hey, thanks for replying.

So you believe that, in every circumstance, doing something for yourself is wrong?
Or do you mean to exclude more trivial matters?

I will agree with you that love is a very important atribute, perhaps the most important.

No, you have misinterpreted me. There is nothing wrong with doing something for yourself. The wrong is in favoring yourself over others. Caring more about one's own pleasure than the other consenting adult in your example.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
-- Ayn Rand

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

Yes, consent may be necessary for right action between two people, but it is not sufficient. It is certainly possible for consensual activity to involve self-destruction, and therefore be wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MotherFirefly]

No, you have misinterpreted me. There is nothing wrong with doing something for yourself. The wrong is in favoring yourself over others. Caring more about one's own pleasure than the other consenting adult in your example.

Do you think there is any circumstance when it isn't wrong to put yourself first?

 

[MotherFirefly]

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
-- Ayn Rand



Yes, consent may be necessary for right action between two people, but it is not sufficient. It is certainly possible for consensual activity to involve self-destruction, and therefore be wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hello! I like that quote.

So, you believe that self-destruction is wrong?
Do you believe wrong, in this sense, is immoral?
Or is it just.. not a wise thing to do?

Perhaps that is your definition of immoral?

 

[Cute Tink]

Without doing too much overthinking or extensive parsing (so open to some adjustment):

That which causes unnecessary harm or which causes more harm than benefit I would say is generally wrong or bad.

I would also say that the behavior of two consenting adults would generally not be wrong. It would be if their actions had a detrimental effect on others (i.e. a spouse) and their actions went against obligations or commitments they had made.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hello! I like that quote.

Cool.

So, you believe that self-destruction is wrong?

Yes, though what specifically counts as self-destruction isn't always so obvious or straightforward.

Do you believe wrong, in this sense, is immoral?
Or is it just.. not a wise thing to do?

Perhaps that is your definition of immoral?

Morality is a code of a values to guide people through life, although wisdom is needed to properly prioritize those values, and to select from them and implement them in specific circumstances, and moral character is needed to make this a habit and a skill.

Since morality (as a cultural set of ideas of right and wrong) cannot fully contain or replace wisdom, I don't think that I would want to make "wrong" simply mean "immoral". What I want to see is people of good character using their practical judgment as best as they can with whatever wisdom they can muster. They may be guided by morality, but they need to bring life to those moral concepts.

However, I would say that a self-destructive moral character is something to avoid as much as one can, and one should strive to be as wise as one can. It is "wrong" to do otherwise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

Almost seems like we create these moral codes in our head to suit our own agendas.

That's because we do exactly that. But obviously, our upbringing plays a role as well. The culture we find ourselves in, etc. We'll have outside influences.

Yet, there are some things that the majority of the sane members of society will always agree is wrong.

Which is to be expected imo. We are a social species who thrive in cooperative societies. In such a context, certain behaviour is "obviously" detrimental. Which is why societies around the world independently developed similar "ground rules", if you wish.

A society won't function properly under complete anarchy.

Such as innocent murder, or taking advantage of someone sexually, or domestic abuse of any kind.

Hmmm. I wish I could agree, but looking at the different societies in the world today, this isn't really true. There are cultures today, entire countries even, where the wife for example isn't allowed to say "no", when the husband wants sex. Likewise, there are cultures where the husband is very much allowed to beat his wife and children (at least to an extent).

Ironically, such societies mostly are very religious.
Not that long ago, western judeo-christian society wasn't much different.

And then we arrive at another clue that it is us humans who develop morality... the very fact that certain practices were considered morally neutral (or even a moral duty in some cases) back in the day, are considered very very wrong today.

How can that be, if not through humans developing their own morality?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well I think murder and abusing kids,the elderly and animals is wrong

What about when it is believed that god orders to do exactly that?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

@MotherFirefly - I tend to go with, if it causes harm, destroys trust, or treats someone poorly it's generally "wrong" . though there are some situations where you can't help but think ... "that's just wrong."
And though "that's just wrong" tends to be a subjective gut reaction, it seems also relevant to the subject matter.

 

[Dave-W]

As for question one. I would define wrong/bad as anything that is self centered. I base this upon my belief in Christ who commanded to love others as one loves oneself therefore to love oneself more than others is morally wrong by that standard .

I would submit that the command you quote has been superseded:

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Not "as you love yourself," but "as I have loved you." That takes the sloppiness out of the standard. After all, would you want to be loved by someone "as they love themselves" and that person was suicidal?

 

[quatona]

Do you think there is any circumstance when it isn't wrong to put yourself first?

Seeing how my own well-being and the well-being of the systems I am part of (and their other members) are interdependent, I consider this a question based on erroneous premises. It´s never about first or last, it´s always about finding the most effective balance between caring for your individual interests and the interests of the system(s).
It´s absolutely vital and in the interest of everyone involved that I care for my well-being.
And, yes, this sometimes may mean that I come first. Like, when the survival of the system and its other members (think: small children) is dependent on me, I may have to eat first in order to keep up my ability to warrant their survival.

 

[quatona]

What I meant was, it is interesting how varied the responses you get when discussing a specific action.

What I find even more interesting is how varied my own response can be - depending on what I focus on, how far I zoom in or out (i.e. what I define as relevant parts of the situation), whether I consider immediate consequences or long (or very long) term consequences, etc. etc.

Almost seems like we create these moral codes in our head to suit our own agendas.

Why sure, and I do not see how anything but human agendas should or could be the criteria for human moral codes.

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 don´t understand the "yet" at the beginning of this sentence. What´s unexpected about humans agreeing on certain basic human agendas?

 

[durangodawood]

What about when it is believed that god orders to do exactly that?

People who hold those values will typically find their gods do too.

 

[Church2u2]

People who hold those values will typically find their gods do too.

Well yeah.But God ordered a lot of killings in the Torah but His son was not a murderer.Jesus is called The Prince Of Peace and the Lamb of God not the weapon of mass destruction although people have killed supposedly in His name and have been killed because of belief in Him.

 

[durangodawood]

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
-- Ayn Rand

Are there other rational beings besides humans? One would expect Rand to think so, the way she makes the definition generic to all rational beings and not just humans.