What makes something right or Wrong?

[Blackmarch]

What makes something right or wrong, or if it doesn't matter, and explain why.

 

[Clem is Me]

The effect it has on someone and how they react to it.

 

[:æ:]

What makes something right or wrong, or if it doesn't matter, and explain why.

Why do you think that anyone else can answer this question better than you yourself can?

:æ:

 

[Blackmarch]

The effect it has on someone and how they react to it.

so What if one person does something (like say bombed Microsoft HQ) and 2 other people have totally different reactions to it (like one rejoices and the other wants to make the bomber pay for destroying microsoft HQ)?

 

[Blackmarch]

Why do you think that anyone else can answer this question better than you yourself can?

:æ:

This one didn't say such, I would like to know what others base their right/wrong from. And/or why would something be wrong or right.
This is the philosophy & morality forum..

And as you really didn't answer the question;
What makes something right or wrong?

 

[Randall McNally]

What if one person does something (like say bombed Microsoft HQ) and 2 other people have totally different reactions to it (like one rejoices and the other wants to make the bomber pay for destroying microsoft HQ)?

That's a pretty good example to illustrate the vacuity of one-size-fits-all moral absolutism/objectivism. Actually, there might be an objective right or wrong but our ability to determine that is hopelessly obscured by perception.

 

[amonk]

As for every wrong has a right reason & for every right has a true reason , Gods choice to allow people freedom is in the will & right of nature .

Nothing is ever wrong without being right in one way ,
whether it be the will of God for the right of ones freedom ,
then so be it ,
God gave freedom to those who smoke ,
for he also creates cancer .

 

[Blackmarch]

That's a pretty good example to illustrate the vacuity of one-size-fits-all moral absolutism/objectivism. Actually, there might be an objective right or wrong but our ability to determine that is hopelessly obscured by perception.

I like that.
So are you saying there might be some universal law or such somehow? but that even if there is, all the perceptions blind us from seeing it or distort it?

 

[Subordinationist]

Actually, there might be an objective right or wrong but our ability to determine that is hopelessly obscured by perception.

Yes, "there might be". Thats the whole problem isn't it?

I say, that anything that physically harms another human being, is wrong.



.

 

[HouseApe]

Paraphrased from another post:

Most of us know instinctively what is right & wrong. Human Beings are social animals. Genetically, we are designed to be empathetic. I know what my emotional needs are, and I assume others have the same emotional needs. If I see someone suffering, it makes me less happy. If I do something to make them happier, it makes me happier. That's what empathy does and that's what binds us together. Increasing happiness in others and therefore myself is what is "right", reducing it in others and therefore myself is what is "wrong". Very simple really.

But, not everyone has the same dispositions towards empathy. It appears that some people don't have it (think mafia hit men) and others have it perverted (think serial killers). And some have it, but are able to suppress it (think playground bullies).

 

[Norea]

Right and wrong must have context. Is it right or wrong for a guy to wear a mini-skirt and high heels all the while dancing to Polka? Of course it's neither since the context has no meaning to right or wrong. It is wrong for someone to kill another person? There's no context here. Is the person in question threatening the other person? Or is the other person defending his/her life? For morals to be objective they must exist in a context that reality is objective and that personal actions outside of person to person and person to people[and vice versa] have no moral value and that only actions between person to person and person to people have moral value because they're prefaced on the idea of how as human beings we must act toward each other.

Without this significant difference you cannot say you're moral because you follow what someone or some-God told you to do. Authority cannot be the basis of objective morality, it is the antithesis of morality. All morals must be rational and based on unrefutable axioms. So to kill someone that hasn't harmed you or someone you value, or another person, is always objectively wrong. But to kill someone that is trying to kill you or has killed another person in your presence is morally right since you have the right to defend your life and the lives of others. To steal from another is wrong because it harms another. To rape or defraud another is to cause harm to another. All are measureable and accountable.

This is how I set my moral views on. Essentially, you gotta have a brain to have morals.

-- Bridget

 

[Randall McNally]

Yes, "there might be". Thats the whole problem isn't it?

Maybe it's a problem if we're overly obsessed with discovering said objective morality. I think we've done okay without it for a few hundred thousand years.

I say, that anything that physically harms another human being, is wrong.

Does this include self-defense? Or defense of one's family?

 

[amonk]

With sadness and despair , I choose pity over both for we cannot even help ourselves let alone the other if our emotion chooses the better .
With Death I choose Grief for we cannot help but suffer the loss of another .

Mafia Hitman ,
It would have to be the grandeur of Power for which has corrupted there conscience and innocence with a notion of Greed , given there 'slick' Italian style appearance which proves luxury comes with symbol of wealth ,success & power , it scares people just to know they have enough resources to take over a suburb block .

The feeling of power turns them on and scares some people .

Maybe same thing for G.Bush Also ??

 

[:æ:]

This one didn't say such, I would like to know what others base their right/wrong from.

That answer is always the same: their personal values. That is why I suggested that you can answer your own question better than others. Nobody knows your personal values better than you.

And/or why would something be wrong or right.

Please understand that IMHO this is tantamount to asking why people form personal values. To that I respond that it is inherent in the nature of consciousness.

What makes something right or wrong?

Things are only right or wrong to someone. Things are right or wrong to people because of their personal values.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

I say, that anything that physically harms another human being, is wrong.

Can you define "harm" in such a way that does reduce your definition of "wrong" to a meaningless tautology?

:æ:

 

[HouseApe]

Right and wrong must have context. Is it right or wrong for a guy to wear a mini-skirt and high heels all the while dancing to Polka? Of course it's neither since the context has no meaning to right or wrong. It is wrong for someone to kill another person? There's no context here. Is the person in question threatening the other person? Or is the other person defending his/her life? For morals to be objective they must exist in a context that reality is objective and that personal actions outside of person to person and person to people[and vice versa] have no moral value and that only actions between person to person and person to people have moral value because they're prefaced on the idea of how as human beings we must act toward each other.

Absolutely.

Without this significant difference you cannot say you're moral because you follow what someone or some-God told you to do. Authority cannot be the basis of objective morality, it is the antithesis of morality. All morals must be rational and based on unrefutable axioms. So to kill someone that hasn't harmed you or someone you value, or another person, is always objectively wrong. But to kill someone that is trying to kill you or has killed another person in your presence is morally right since you have the right to defend your life and the lives of others. To steal from another is wrong because it harms another. To rape or defraud another is to cause harm to another. All are measureable and accountable.

So from what basis do we draw the unrefutable axioms?

 

[:æ:]

So from what basis do we draw the unrefutable axioms?

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "unrefutable axiom." Such an animal would be equally absurd as a "true definition" or a "false opinion." Axioms are statements which are not subject to refutation or proof. They are simply accepted or not.

 

[amonk]

Norea ,
Right or Wrong when someone wears a mini skirt wearing high heels dancing to polka ,

Sure that has , would you feel 'socially accepted' to be wearing a miniskirt ,red highheels and smothered lipstick ?

These are context to 'Social Justification' , doing the things you do now that you make you feel accepted by others , is it right or wrong ?

Try on the costume and find out .

You don't need to have a brain to know morals ,for a brainless person is harmless ,the person with the brains are the people to worry about .

A lawyer knows the law ,he has obviously got a brain and knows the ins & outs of the system , how would morals involve the law when it is even broken by those who know it best ?

I mean for a bunch of lies which prooves the red colour on his hand isn't blood but red paint is obviously a scham organized to protect the criminal , the law deceives the the perception of truth .

 

[amonk]

you gotta have a brain to have morals.

also this is not objectivist perception , in reality the person is dead .

 

[Blackmarch]

As for every wrong has a right reason & for every right has a true reason , Gods choice to allow people freedom is in the will & right of nature .

That there is a God who makes the reason and what is right, wrong, and is defined by him is fine and great. But if you were to pass something as a law (especially in a government such as the U.S.'s), or convince someone who doesn't believe in God (or some superior force/being) that such is right or wrong, how would you?

Nothing is ever wrong without being right in one way , ...

this is interesting, could you expound on what this means a little more?

... whether it be the will of God for the right of ones freedom ,
then so be it ,
God gave freedom to those who smoke ,
for he also creates cancer .

This is about freedom of choice right? how would that tie into what is right or wrong?