What makes something right or Wrong?

[Randall McNally]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "unrefutable axiom."

"Something exists."

 

[HouseApe]

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.

I disagree. Simple, independent observation can create an irrefutable axiom. On Earth, if I jump up, I will return to the Earth. I think that has such a high probability as to be considered irrefutable, with enough confidence to produce airplanes. Though strictly in logic, axioms are not required to be irrefutable.

 

[elman]

I think it can be divided into what is loving and what is unloving.

 

[:æ:]

"Something exists."

Yes, and... ?

Methinks you also confuse the nature of axioms and the nature of fact claims. Axioms aren't subject to refutation, just as they aren't subject to proof. That's why the idea of an "unrefuatble axiom" is as absurd as an "unfalsifiable definition." Axioms are like definitions. They are not true or false. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, precise or imprecise, etc..

:æ:

 

[HouseApe]

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 think that objective morality exists, in the sense that in any situation with a moral component, a perfectly right action exists. I do not think that it is necessarily possible to know what that perfectly right action is. It is like science: gravity exists, but human beings may never be able to perfectly understand it. And even if we did have a perfect definition, we could never really know that we have it.

I don't think we've done okay for a few hundred thousand years. I attribute that to following the wrong path in attempting to discovering objective morality.

 

[HouseApe]

[/i]
That there is a God who makes the reason and what is right, wrong, and is defined by him is fine and great.

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?

 

[:æ:]

I disagree. Simple, independent observation can create an irrefutable axiom. On Earth, if I jump up, I will return to the Earth.

See my recent post about the difference between axioms and fact claims. Axioms are supposed true a priori, and as such are not "refuted" but simply "rejected" on an a priori basis.

:æ:

 

[Adoniram]

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.

I don't know about the "various gods," but Jesus did indeed give us enough to make moral decisions on just about everything that relates to living morally in society. The essence is encapsulated in just one verse:

John 13:34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

A more involved summary: Luke 6 27-45


Love for Enemies

27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Judging Others

37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39 He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

A Tree and Its Fruit

43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

If mankind could follow Jesus' guidance in these matters there would be no need for laws or even for government. But alas, people don't.

Is there a moral absolute that determines right and wrong? The answer is yes and is found in the simple statement: "Love one another, and do to others as you would have them do to you."

 

[amonk]

BlackMarch ,

Nothing is ever wrong without being right in one way .
an example :
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 ...

It is all in there ,the right of freedom ( and to mean only freedom- undelibrated,purposeless,no barriers ) freedom of choice is what the authority allows us to have after the law has decided what to allow us with ,for if he allows cigerettes then for every harmful action has a consequence , let that be cancer .

This does not affect our own personal objective duty to care for ourselves ( or else it wouldn't be providing cigerattes , alchohol etc ) ,the right & wrong doesn't surround us by authority we only support it by giving in to it and allowing it become a part of us ,therefore freedom in an authority sensed society is an illusion .

God help them if they do not know right but it is certain enough that every action(wrong) has a consequence (rightful of its own way) .

 

[Clem is Me]

What makes something right or left?

 

[Inperfected]

The effect it has or would have if played out. Ie, whether the effect is on you, others, the enviroment, etc...
SO it can be on something physical, or an emtional.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I don't know about the "various gods," but Jesus did indeed give us enough to make moral decisions on just about everything that relates to living morally in society.

It would be nice if that were true, but unfortunately, it's not. Nothing Jesus said allows us to unequivocally solve such moral issues as:

- the legalisation of abortion
- the legalisation of homosexual marriage
- homosexuality in general
- pre-marital sex
- the justifiability of violence
- the justifiability of war
- women's rights

or a whole host of other moral issues.

Not to mention the fact that on these and other moral issues, Christians have been completely divided, despite the fact that they all rely on God/Jesus as the supreme moral authority. In other words, even if we say that Jesus has given us all we need to make all moral decisions, he hasn't given it to us clearly enough.

If mankind could follow Jesus' guidance in these matters there would be no need for laws or even for government. But alas, people don't.

That's simply false as is evidenced by the fact that no two people can agree on just what Jesus' guidance is/means.

Is there a moral absolute that determines right and wrong? The answer is yes and is found in the simple statement: "Love one another, and do to others as you would have them do to you."

Which, as shown above, does not go anywhere near giving us all we need to solve all moral issues.

 

[amonk]

I myself can't do so much to give advice about homosexuality , Jesus had a personal issue with it as much I feel about it , moral issues involve the right of human and what God allows us to have , Freedom .

It appears Jesus didn't understand properly , as he would have never said anything like this unless it was his own feeling of doubt ,as he was never near as wise or gifted or attained much power as the almighty creator for he allowed the right of human for Freedom , Jesus can't defeat that by deciding against it in someway .

We are contradicting that freedom by not allowing it in others , it is best to let things be as it will all unfold on itself sometime when nature does not allow them to live ( whether it be AIDS pr other epidemic ) they all do unto themselves and go about eachother .

 

[Randall McNally]

Methinks you also confuse the nature of axioms and the nature of fact claims. Axioms aren't subject to refutation, just as they aren't subject to proof. That's why the idea of an "unrefuatble axiom" is as absurd as an "unfalsifiable definition." Axioms are like definitions. They are not true or false. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, precise or imprecise, etc..

Well, a proffered axiom can be refuted insofar as it can be shown not to be axiomatic within the specified system. Ideally, a statement is axiomatic if the specified system produces a contradiction when the statement is negated.

Hence, "something exists" is properly axiomatic because all systems predicate existence.

I have also been told that "God exists" is axomatic. However, the system in question seems to subsist without postulating God. Thus, I would deny that "God exists" is properly axiomatic.

 

[Norea]

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 .

Wrong, social 'norms' are not even normal if we were to accept rational thought and empiricism. If you wanna go with the group-think mentality then by all means. I'm looking at it from a rational individualistic perspective[Objectivism]. So if I wear a fake fur coat while I go to a PETA rally, they, the rally-goers, have no moral or ethical right to harm me what-so-ever. If we go by your impetus that group-think is primacy over rational objective morals, then Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and etc were right in their crimes against humankind..

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 .

Wrong yet again. If you cannot think of reasons why not to harm a person then you're not thinking. You're merely either going with the group or going with emotional responses. This is not how true morals develop. You cannot accept gut instinct as the primacy, ever. Nor can you accept rationlizing as the primacy. Morals must stand on their own or fail.

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 ?

According to whom does a lawyer automatically break the laws? Also what laws are based in morals or logic? None that I know of. They're all based in group-think, which seems to be your forte.

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 .

Wrong, it is the MORAL OBLIGATION of a DEFENSE LAWYER to DEFEND the ACCUSED, even if the person is patently guilty. Everyone has the inherent right to attempt to defend their life. If that wasn't true then the even the victim of the accused has no right to have a case against the accused in turn. You're rationalizing group-think and false dichtomies. Please try again.

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

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

Ummmm yes it is objectivist based. Also how in the world is a person dead when they're BREATHING, thinking and moving? Stop reading the stupid canned buddhist quotes!

-- Bridget

 

[amonk]

Rather than thinking about it , try it on , really .

Would you feel normal or uncomfortable not being normal ?

Are you normal or is it the others that aren't ?

lso what laws are based in morals or logic? None that I know of

ll 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.

They're all based in group-think.

It is inconsistant to say no laws apply to logic from your standpoint .
Although they are based on 'based on unrefutable axioms" .

What non-logical sense do you mean by unrefutable axioms ?

 

[amonk]

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

I was stating your contradiction to objectivist perception (saying this is not) where a person without a brain is harmless for he is already dead .

 

[amonk]

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 .

 

[:æ:]

Well, a proffered axiom can be refuted insofar as it can be shown not to be axiomatic within the specified system.

IMHO, this isn't what is ordinarily described as a "refutation."

Hence, "something exists" is properly axiomatic because all systems predicate existence.

Right, but what I'm saying is that your statement isn't subject to refutation nor proof. That's what it means to be an axiom.

:æ: