What makes something right or Wrong?

[:æ:]

Wrong, it is the MORAL OBLIGATION of a DEFENSE LAWYER to DEFEND the ACCUSED, even if the person is patently guilty.

I disagree. The obligation of a defense lawyer is a legal obligation. And while betraying that legal obligation is morally wrong to you as much as it is to me, this perceived "moral obligation" is not an objective fact like you portray it in your statements.

:æ:

 

[Randall McNally]

I disagree. The obligation of a defense lawyer is a legal obligation. And while betraying that legal obligation is morally wrong to you as much as it is to me, this perceived "moral obligation" is not an objective fact like you portray it in your statements.

It's actually an ethical obligation. A lawyer won't face charges for failing to provide the most zealous defense possible, but the case will be subject to scrutiny on appeal and he can be disciplined by the bar.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Blackmarch,you had a few replies put differently,but all meaning the same.It is right to do to others as you would like to have done to yourself.It is wrong to do to others what you would Not like to be done to you.Be absolutely honest to yourself,and you will have your answer.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

 

[Blackmarch]

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).

OK so because of instinct that determines whether something is right or wrong?
And if it benefits that group, it is right?

As posted in another thread:
So what about if and when the inclinations change for the majority? (say, to wanting to kill, or to kill a smaller group)
You replied; It'll get real ugly, real quick!
yes it would, but would it be wrong?

 

[Blackmarch]

Dear Blackmarch,you had a few replies put differently,but all meaning the same.It is right to do to others as you would like to have done to yourself.It is wrong to do to others what you would Not like to be done to you.Be absolutely honest to yourself,and you will have your answer.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

Which is why I trust the majority of people, because that they have these reasons for mutually helping each other.

"It is right to do to others as you would like to have done to yourself.It is wrong to do to others what you would Not like to be done to you."
Is an awesome principle (and I agree to it personally), but what makes it right?

There have been a lot of good reasons of why or why not, and I thank everybody for posting them. I've been the devil's advocate a little bit for the discussion, because I find it very interesting.

so if I said (being the devil's advocate here);
"there are no gods or devils, and no afterlife. We are just animals following instincts and so there is no such thing as right and wrong , just the percieved notion of such which is just an illusion. It really doesn't matter what someone does."
Would I be wrong or right, and why?

 

[Clem is Me]

so if I said (being the devil's advocate here);
"there are no gods or devils, and no afterlife. We are just animals following instincts and so there is no such thing as right and wrong , just the percieved notion of such which is just an illusion. It really doesn't matter what someone does."
Would I be wrong or right, and why?

I would edit your sentence to read:

"there are no gods or devils, and no afterlife. We are SELF AWARE animals TRYING TO RESOLVE SOCIETAL NEEDS WITH ANCIENT instincts and so there is no such thing as right and wrong PER SE, just the percieved notion of such which is AN IMPORTANT CONSTRUCT FOR LIVING WITH ONE ANOTHER."

 

[Blackmarch]

Unfortunately, the various God's have not defined morality at a granular enough level to allow us to make moral decisions on anything but the most simple cases. Example: Poor guy has an immediate need to feed his baby. Asks rich guy for milk. Rich guy refuses. Does the poor guy steal the milk? What if he could buy the milk himself in the morning, but the baby cries all night? "Thou shalt not steal" simply doesn't cover it. Or how about "sell all that you have and give it to the poor". What if that meant I would lose my earnings potential, in that over the long term, I could have given more to the poor?

Going by what I could find in the Bible and other things of Christian text, the rich guy would be in the wrong. but the problem with that is that not everyone believes in the Christian belief, or even the same Christian belief. Another problem would be the proof part. It could also be argued that the worship of deity is just made up, an illusion.

 

[Blackmarch]

I would edit your sentence to read:

"there are no gods or devils, and no afterlife. We are SELF AWARE animals TRYING TO RESOLVE SOCIETAL NEEDS WITH ANCIENT instincts and so there is no such thing as right and wrong PER SE, just the percieved notion of such which is AN IMPORTANT CONSTRUCT FOR LIVING WITH ONE ANOTHER."

OK, But what makes that construct important?

 

[Clem is Me]

Come on!

 

[:æ:]

It's actually an ethical obligation. A lawyer won't face charges for failing to provide the most zealous defense possible, but the case will be subject to scrutiny on appeal and he can be disciplined by the bar.

Perhaps it differs from state to state, but charges of ethical violations are still charges laid against an attorney where I come from. They obviously aren't criminal charges, but attorney's are still investigated, prosecuted and disciplined by the state. Seems quite a legal matter to me.

The point is that a particular behavior is not automatically "right" or "moral" for the simple fact that it is required by a set of rules codified by the state, and that point remains.

:æ:

 

[Blackmarch]

Come on!

Or maybe I should ask which percieved construct and why that one? what would make it important?
After all it would be just 2 people, or group of people's perception, which could be contrary or opposite to another group or couple.

 

[Clem is Me]

Or maybe I should ask which percieved construct and why that one? what would make it important?
After all it would be just 2 people, or group of people's perception, which could be contrary or opposite to another group or couple.

OK


Look


I want you to ask yourself the same question. But apply it to man as though man were a very smart animal that has to compete with bears, lions, hyenas and all the forces of nature to survive. And eventually with other men. I am sick and tired of handing people information like Sesame Street. Do the math.

 

[Blackmarch]

I want you to ask yourself the same question. But apply it to man as though man were a very smart animal that has to compete with bears, lions, hyenas and all the forces of nature to survive. And eventually with other men. I am sick and tired of handing people information like Sesame Street. Do the math.

Looking at man as a very smart animal, that has to compete with others, it would not matter what man would do (or even if he existed or not, or wiped himself out), there wouldn't be a right or wrong. Even the individual creatures that did not act quite like the average rest of the group would not be in the wrong.

If the "right" thing was survival and continuing your genes (from an evolutionary view) Then man would have to wipe out those which compete with it (at least to the point where they're not in competition, or subdue it for their benefit. He might band into groups with similar traits, and together they would overcome other groups or species, but it would not matter how they do that.


In short nothing would matter.

 

[Clem is Me]

Keep going. You quit too soon.

 

[Norea]

It seems if you wish to continue anger at me , then maybe you shouldn't be trying so hard to make mistakes and misunderstandings to delibratly ridicule me with your comments such as ;

Stop reading the stupid canned buddhist quotes!

Delibretely insulting it is but not in any way harmed as you have no understanding of what buddhism is .
namaste .

Umm it's about subjectivism rather than finding a real world solution to problems. I studied various forms of Buddhism and found them not to be rational nor useful in my life.

-- Bridget just an evil western thinker....

 

[Clarity]

Can right and wrong exist unless you have some sort of absolute basis outside yourself such as religion?
I think not, as if it just comes down to a matter of personal opinion then nothing can be labelled as right or wrong, just as nothing can be said to be abolutely beautiful as there is bound to be someone who thinks it is ugly. For example if there is a large number of people who think murder is wrong but a single person who says murder is right then murder cannot be labelled right(the person who says it is right may be right, you cannot tell as there is no absolute standard). Unless you have an absolute such as religion to derive right/wrong then right/wrong become arbitrary labels with no universal meaning as their meaning is different to everyone and so you cannot say that something is right/wrong but you can say that a certain person thinks it is right/wrong but you have no way of finding any factual truth about right/wrong so trying to define right/wrong is futile as everyone will disagree. Many people realise this and have given up on the concept of absolute right/wrong. Anyway if there is no god
Why should you do what is right, if it is possible to do what is considered wrong by some people and get away with it and possibly benefit from wrong?

 

[elman]

Can right and wrong exist unless you have some sort of absolute basis outside yourself such as religion?
I think not, as if it just comes down to a matter of personal opinion then nothing can be labelled as right or wrong, just as nothing can be said to be abolutely beautiful as there is bound to be someone who thinks it is ugly. For example if there is a large number of people who think murder is wrong but a single person who says murder is right then murder cannot be labelled right(the person who says it is right may be right, you cannot tell as there is no absolute standard). Unless you have an absolute such as religion to derive right/wrong then right/wrong become arbitrary labels with no universal meaning as their meaning is different to everyone and so you cannot say that something is right/wrong but you can say that a certain person thinks it is right/wrong but you have no way of finding any factual truth about right/wrong so trying to define right/wrong is futile as everyone will disagree. Many people realise this and have given up on the concept of absolute right/wrong. Anyway if there is no god
Why should you do what is right, if it is possible to do what is considered wrong by some people and get away with it and possibly benefit from wrong?

Are you serious? Murder may be right because some freak says it is right and he may be right? What world are you living in? This is esoteric nonsense. Right and wrong is not determined by majority vote or agreement of all people.
Something that is unloving is unloving and it matters not if any or all object and say it is loving. That would be like voting on what colour something is. There are some gray areas as we go through life, but not many. Most of the time we can all recognize red from blue and loving from unloving and we don't need to know what the majority thinks.

 

[HouseApe]

OK so because of instinct that determines whether something is right or wrong?
And if it benefits that group, it is right?

As posted in another thread:
So what about if and when the inclinations change for the majority? (say, to wanting to kill, or to kill a smaller group)
You replied; It'll get real ugly, real quick!
yes it would, but would it be wrong?

You are still assuming right and wrong are things that are outside of instinct. Right means instinctually showing empathy, wrong means not following your instinctual empathy. A band of monkeys will not survive if they don't work together, protect each other, share their food, take care of their young. Neither will humans. I still say it's simple.

Note that because it is genetic, it cannot change for the majority. The only thing that can change is whether or not the majority view the minority as a part of their tribe. If yes, they would never want to kill them. If no, well look at the Hutu's & Tutsi's in Rwanda.

 

[amonk]

Norea ,you still have no idea I don't think you understand it , what you said is garble .
It basically teaches us to respect nature , freedom and the cycle of life ,understanding how life affects our reality & how reality affects us.

It takes a deep understanding to see this from the texts .

Not unless you don't believe in freedom - it is an illusion of ones perception-, don't believe in the wrongful killing of animals for food or survival and or harm the way of nature ,then yes it is subjective because some people don't see the consequences of there own doings which add to real world problems .

For those who do such are blinded by reality not by the faith ,Buddhism solves the mind-body problem ,for the mind-body - our body allows us to do things that we want it to do, our minds do not see consequentially how many things we are affecting as to the impact of what our body does.

This is not a monkey see monkey do objective based religion ,that is a scientific paradigm a means to serve practical application for real world problems but should be lead by those who do not have mind-body problems , as it teaches responsibility with action for what we do .

 

[Norea]

Norea ,you still have no idea I don't think you understand it , what you said is garble .
It basically teaches us to respect nature , freedom and the cycle of life ,understanding how life affects our reality & how reality affects us.

It takes a deep understanding to see this from the texts .

Um, no. Because there isn't anything known as special knowledge. All humans have the same capacities of reason, albeit some seem slower than others, but still they have the same capacities. And as such, you cannot ignore the fact that your attribution of special knowledge is a fallacy.

Not unless you don't believe in freedom - it is an illusion of ones perception-, don't believe in the wrongful killing of animals for food or survival and or harm the way of nature ,then yes it is subjective because some people don't see the consequences of there own doings which add to real world problems .

Just because someone can't see the total consequence of their actions at one time or another doesn't negate the reality of the objective form of an action/consequence dichtomy. It only brings light to that Reason, like all other tools of humans, require training. And so, you haven't negated my argument. Please try again.

For those who do such are blinded by reality not by the faith ,Buddhism solves the mind-body problem ,for the mind-body - our body allows us to do things that we want it to do, our minds do not see consequentially how many things we are affecting as to the impact of what our body does.

There isn't a mind/body problem. You are your BODY. If I hit in the head and my brains were turned into street pizza from it, that would definitely mean I'm certain to not come back. And there is no evidence of souls in the history of science. Heck, even Sidhartha never say anything about souls. Only the Western traditional comes up with this concept as it being the conscious factor of one's being. In the East, it's counter to that proposition and thusly the Western response would be, "If it doesn't contain the memories, consciousness or other significant traits of attribution of the person, then a soul is useless to even consider real. And that doing so makes it a hypothetical construct."

This is not a monkey see monkey do objective based religion ,that is a scientific paradigm a means to serve practical application for real world problems but should be lead by those who do not have mind-body problems , as it teaches responsibility with action for what we do .

Religion isn't objective!!! Read the works of James, Paul, and Titus, and etc. They predicate faith over reason. Western religion is based on this concept. And as such, to claim a western religion as 'objective' is like saying someone who thinks UFOs are actually spaceships from XYZ but has no proof of such is objective. Thus your argument of 'objective religion' FAILS. Western Religions have more to do with a dualistic position of matter vs spirit than it does with the pertanent issue of morals in an everyday situation. Philosophy, such as that of Aristotle, Locke, and Stirner have given us a basis for rational morality. You really can't seem to get this and as such I will just say, that's your problem, not mine.

-- Bridget