Right and Wrong

Do "right" and "wrong" exist as objective standards
above and outside all human authority?

If not, is it "the individual" who ultimately determines what is right or wrong,
good or evil? Could you do anything you please, if you decided that it
was right to to it?

If it isn't the individual who has this authority, is it "The State"?
If the legally constituted government says that genocide is good and right,
does it become right?

Do we "control" and "decide" what is right and wrong,
or do we only "discover" an already pre-existing
standard?
:cool:

I don't really think there is a definite, tangible description of right and wrong. There is a huge gray area in between the two. (Yes, I think they are opposites.) And the gray will be lighter or darker at points, depending on who's opinion you ask.

The state definitely does not decide right and wrong, since it is composed of people, and they have different opinions tainted by different experiences. Right and wrong is outside our control and is, like time, a relative measurement.

People/the state do have some say in what is right and wrong, but mostly its society that decides. If you were raised to believe that stealing is okay, and everyone else stole, you'd steal too, without any moral objections. You might think that things like killing are obviously wrong, but don't be so sure. We've seen many examples of people with "strange" ideas of right and wrong (strange as far as we see it).

I think that right and wrong exsist but definately are a result of culture that you live in. The laws you have in your country/society are defined by the culture you live in. We have a say in what is right or wrong but we base our opinions of right and wrong by the way we are raised, by the culture we are raised in.

i really should be sleeping and i might be tripping out from lack of it and ill hate what ive written tonight, tomorrow, but tonight:

It’s been my observation that law comes out of order. Once people gather to live together to accomplish a common goal, they make concessions to form an alliance. Someone comes along who wants to be a part of this, they look, instinctually at how others act with one another to ascertain what is acceptable behavior and what is not, or what is right and what is wrong. You can see a minor example of this in the posts of young newbies here on AO. They state as dictum, opinions they’ve gleaned from some of those who have been here longer e.g. “don’t ask questions about Trojans”. I know this is a silly example but im very tired and that’s all I can think of.

The basic forms of human interaction are predetermined, IMO, by our species and can be seen in peoples that develop with out contact with each other. Things like ‘we’ll get along fine as long as you keep your hands off my shit’. ‘Call me a wimp and I’ll kick your ass’ and ‘nobody messes with one of mine’. These are emotions common to us all. Now that we’re all educated we have the problem of deciding, what exactly is “your shit”, what exactly defines a ‘whimp’ and just who constitutes “yours”?

A problem arises when different people influence different groups as a society grows and a difference in ideologies comes into being. At this point it becomes necessary for some form of government to arbitrate. The larger the area that comes under the jurisdiction of this government, the less likely it is that the individuals involved are satisfied by its decisions and the more likely it becomes that different ways of thinking and living are threatened.

So I believe that the individual has a say in what is considered right and wrong, as long as the existing form of justice remains decentralized. Once control goes beyond a certain area, justice becomes a cold and impersonal process in which the individual plays no part and laws grow and transform like stories passed from person to person.

Thank you for letting me share.

/me -v

I think that our concept of right and wrong is a combination of nature vs. nurture. You are born with the knowledge that hurting someone else is wrong...it doesn't necessarily stop you from doing it, but you know it is wrong. Anyone who spends time with small children knows this. They may do something to hurt someone, but most of the time, they wait until no one is looking.
I think we are all born with an innate knowledge of what should and shouldn't be done, but it is profoundly influenced by the situation in which we live. What may be acceptable behavior in one household will cause uproar in another. We all have the basic ideas of what is correct behavior, but it is open to debate between one group of people and another.

Deb :D

i think that right and wrong is defined by the perciever if you believe something is right than that thing to you IS RIGHT. and vice versa. just like Bin Laden or Hitler they believed that what they were doing were the right thing... although in the people who where dying and injured felt that they were wrong. it's all in the Point of View...
that's my two cents...:D

right and wrong are relative terms. the individual determines his or her own right and wrong. when large groups agree on something being right or wrong, it usually becomes the norm.... this however does not make true right or wrong out of it. how do we know we aren't all crazy and the people in the insane asylums aren't normal? we don't, we are just the majority. really you cna't pin there to be one absolute right and absolute wrong. morals and ethics are all determined by human beings. there is no "greater good" that runs through people where they all agree that one thing is right or wrong.

***note: this is all without adding god to the equation. if you put god in, it gets more confusing.

Right and wrong is determined by God's will. This is stated as the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament and in Jesus' command to love God and neighbor in the New Testament. All true laws and morals come from these. So yes, right and wrong is absolute. God gives clear standards.

Preacherman481, not everyone believes in god, as far as I'm concerned the 10 commandments are just reccomendations in a book. And according to what you say, moral standards are determind by god, which thus makes them laws set down by someone else, as opposed to inherent qualities.

Hi Secret Fire,
Well, RC was asking, "Do right and wrong exist as objective qualities above and outside all human authority?" I believe they do because God sets the standards for right and wrong. Before they are "inherent qualities" they are standards set by God. God's will sets the standard for right and wrong whether anyone believes in Him or not. God's will doesn't increase or decrease in importance or truth because we believe in Him or not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by thesecretfire
Preacherman481, not everyone believes in god, as far as I'm concerned the 10 commandments are just reccomendations in a book. And according to what you say, moral standards are determind by god, which thus makes them laws set down by someone else, as opposed to inherent qualities.

---

Okay, I expect this responce from most people. But like Preach said, it really doesnt matter if you belive in him or not....well in a sence. But It states in the Bible that God has put eternity in our hearts. At one point in your life, God revealed himself to you. "Behold I stand at the door and knock...." I wonder how long he will knock.

Anyways, getting back on track here. Right and wrong. We all know what it is. There are some really obviouse wrongs in the world. We all "FEEL" if we were to kill someone, thats wrong.We also "FEEL" guilty when we do something we know were not supposed to do....Stealing from people, lying, ect.. You know why you FEEL bad? Its called a concience.
Your concience tells you what is right and wrong. You gotta wonder where did that come from.
Maybe it developed over time, because repeated training from your parents. Or maybe it was placed in your heart when you were born. I leave that up to you.

But where the problem lies, is when people make excuses, and make themselves feel better about what their doing. So Their concience, is dulled and deformed. But at one time you knew.
You did. And now we make excuses for what we do. I make an excuse for my marijuana habit every day prolly. I know its wrong. I can admit that. BUt i can say after years of excuses for my habit, my conciouse has become a little dull. And that is a dangerouse place to be.

It seems to me that there are certain absolute right/wrong actions in this world. Depriving a person of life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness are good examples of wrong. These are not created by a group and handed out to its members, but are universal constants that all sentient creatures have in common...

Now the question is where do these laws come from? God? Clearly that cannot be the answer, as most people come up with similar answers (Thou Shall not Kill to quote the Juedo-Christian tradition), yet have different gods and differ in many important respects (the Juedo-Christian prohibetion on eating "rock badgers" for one).... So unless god is all gods at the same time (somehting our Christian friends I think would disagree with) then god cannot be the answer....

I'm not all that familiar with the rock badger rule.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that there are certain absolute right/wrong actions in this world. Depriving a person of life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness are good examples of wrong.

---

this is in your opinion... and in american culture this is true. in other cultures however they may or may not agree with you. there are plenty of people in the middle east that feel that they have no rights. this is a cultural belief. i know this is what some of them believe because i am friends with people that used to live there. you can not say that freedom is an absolute right. depriving someone of that is not absolutely wrong. there is no one thing that is absolutely right, there is only things that are right at the time, or right from your point of view. perspective is the ultimate equalizer.

I think perspective is the ultimate evil.

preacher> you can't really use god as a substantial arguement though. cause belief in god is required for people to agree that god's law is the ultimate good. without faith, the arguement crumbles. if i told you the ultimate good was some thing that the invisible pink rabbit says, but you don't believe in said rabbit, would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
preacher> you can't really use god as a substantial arguement though. cause belief in god is required for people to agree that god's law is the ultimate good. without faith, the arguement crumbles. if i told you the ultimate good was some thing that the invisible pink rabbit says, but you don't believe in said rabbit, would you agree?

---

I hear what you're saying, but the truth is the truth whether or not anyone believes it. It is not dependent on our belief or unbelief.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by preacherman481


I hear what you're saying, but the truth is the truth whether or not anyone believes it. It is not dependent on our belief or unbelief.

---

God does not exist. Your mind created the concept when it tried to explain certain things, and due to the environment you grew up in, the concept has stuck. God is an explanation that seems to work for a lot of people, but at the same time has caused a massive amount of pain and struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by thesecretfire

God does not exist. Your mind created the concept when it tried to explain certain things, and due to the environment you grew up in, the concept has stuck. God is an explanation that seems to work for a lot of people, but at the same time has caused a massive amount of pain and struggle.

---

Actually, the world would be a lot easier to explain if it weren't for God. Without God I wouldn't be faced with questions of making moral decisions and making sense of the evil and suffering going on around me. And I know God and religion have been used as excuses for wars and the like for a long time. But people would have found some other reason to kill one another without God. And how, can you be so sure God does not exist?

How can you be so sure god exists?

Besides, I don't need to be sure he doesn't exist. I don't believe in god because that's not the way my mind works, that's not the way I explain things. And you can still be moral without creating a vengful/forgiving/etc. deity.

preacher> it is completely dependent on belief though. cause you can not prove right or wrong with god. i know what you are saying, but if god is the only way to prove absolute right or wrong, then you can't relaly prove it to a non-believer, whether it exists or not.

thesecretfire> so you are advocating that there is some ultimate morality that runs through humanity? or are you just saying it is possible to have "morals?" really though, what are morals? without something to set an absolute right or worng, there can be no real "morals." you could say taking human life is "wrong" but what about canibalistic cultures? are they wrong, or just different? right and wrong just depends on which side of the issue you are on. absolutes can not exist outside of some creator. there is no greater good or ultimate morality that all humans have.

Consider this hypothetical possibility.
Let's say that there is a place called hell, where people are
tortured day and night for milloins of years with no relief.

Now assume that these people believe that "morality is relative" and
that you can't state with certainty that any action is existentially "right" or "wrong"

Now, according to their own philosiphy, they cannot accuse their tormentor of
being in the wrong. It's only a matter of opinion.

And, since he has the power to do as he pleases, and can define "right and wrong"
in any way that seems sensible to him, he is right and they can all...
heh heh...go to hell.
:cool:

you are very correct in your statement. that is the way the world is.

Lord -

No the idea that all humans have certain set of rights that cannot be taken away is not just and opinion, it is the basis for all human interaction. Certainly some societies have used the idea of a social hierarchy to enslave others, but the idea that humans have rights that are universal is universal, embraced by most cultures, and enshrined in many documents in the western world and beyond....

As for preachermans comments, one cannot argue with those blinded by faith...

[Quote]As for preachermans comments, one cannot argue with those blinded by faith...[Quote]

Hi,
Well, I believe that is only in faith that we truly begin to see the world as it is. :)

jcmcb> who made these rights? are they all through one human good? one moral stream line? if so then you are niave. human nature is not freedom or liberty. most try to control others. most people try to better ones self not others. freedom is not a right in the ultimate scheme of things sort of way. it has been decided upon as a right by the western world. it is not some thing that has existed since the beginning of time. it is a relative thing, not an absolute. dominate american culture believes it is an absolute and that america is absolutely right because it allows this absolute right, but it is not quite so absolute.

In a way, morality is synonymous with power.
Absolute rules of morality cannot exist, unless
there is absolute power to enforce them.

In the face of tyrannical and oppressive government,
(take the NAZIs for example), why do some people
bend and comply, obey, join in and participate,
while some others resist?

It has to be their philosophical perception of:

"Who has legitimate authority?"
People don't like to act against their own conscience.
If my philosophy doesn't give my conscience
the permission to disobey the government,
I will not have a moral basis to resist.

If I'm convinced that I can appeal to a higher
authority, I can face the apparently overwhelming
force of the oppressor, knowing that I am on
the winning side.

"Relative morality", on the other hand, cuts
this resistance off at the knees, because people
will assume that, since the state has the power,
it has the right to make the rules.
:cool:

Lord Darkside x - You like the word absolute, don't you?

But seriously - No one "made" these rights... These rights exists because humans do not have an instictual (spelling? not on this post!) order like Wolfs or Hippos. We adopt social orders and organziations out of need, and those organizations do not grant us "rights" but rather take them away in return for stability and security.

Lord - I am surpised that you would deny that humans have basic rights that no governement can take away without consent, if at all. I was under the impression that you were an anarchist, or close to, and the idea that gov't is harmful to human rights is a basic tennet of the Anarchist Movement...

I could be totaly off on your political view points....

Freedom is not a right, but one of the things that make us human. Really, it is the capacity (is this the word?) to choose, only that. Freedom of movement, of expression, etc, are secondary. We all born free. The question is: Are we aware (?) of that. In the case of oppresed people, they may choose to fight... but death is always near. Maybe choosing to survive and delaying the moment to live a plenty life as we Westerns know (or not) is also a wise way. But, remember, Freedom makes us human (among other qualities, of course).

Any more?

rock badgers? pink rabbits? Oh - I'm in just another cosmos discussion. I've been away for a while.

I'm back.