Morality & Ethics: Is there such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'?

[Zar]

Right to start a little topic because im bored at work (and i'd quite like to see a good debate):

Morality & Ethics: Is there such a thing as 'right' or 'wrong'?

yap away my little puppies

[Leshy]

There is no objective right or wrong, there are merely actions.

Society in general either acknowledges an action to be right or wrong based on a set of values and morals that particular society upholds due to these having been passed on, or because that particular society perceives those to create a situation in which most people can happily coexist. Actions which may be right in one society, may be wrong in another; often the moral value of actions are even debated within a single society itself - often being decided by a majority vote.

Thread solved.

[LHC]

Yeah, there are incorrect moralities.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by LHC

Yeah, there are incorrect moralities.

No, there aren't.

Morality isn't something that can be studied objectively. Passing judgement on something is applying your own set of morals. Obviously claiming that your morals are better than someone else's is nonsense, since you cannot determine the validity of your own by any objective means.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Leshy

No, there aren't.

It sounds to me like you are passing objective judgement on my morality.

[Leshy]

The claim that incorrect moralities exist has nothing to do with your - or my - morality.

Hence I'm simply stating that your observation is objectively incorrect.

[LHC]

If people don't consider their own morality to be correct, they shouldn't believe their morality at all.

Of course it's a moral issue to judge other people's moralities as right or wrong.

[queball]

Relativism isn't usually important. When it is, you get politics, I guess.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tcairn_arms_dc

[Event_Horizon]

In a primitive way morality can be defined as whats best for the indivdual. Now, you can argue that what might be best for an individual would be to kill some one with alot of money and then steal all of it. However, a smart individual would realize that if I did this than other people would also do this and society would degrade into chaos and in the long run my murder would not be what is best for me.

I suppose do unto others as you would have done unto you. Personally I am a christian, so my morality is easy to define....

[Deffeh]

usually.

[Tomkat]

There will always be a valid argument against the other, so no, there is no absolute right or wrong.

[Sunday8pm]

Zar, if you are going to make a thread like this, you gotta actually provide something yourself, you don't provide, you are not rewarded.

I call bullshit.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Zar, if you are going to make a thread like this, you gotta actually provide something yourself, you don't provide, you are not rewarded.

I call bullshit.

the title of my question is enough to give away my view on this matter

is there such a thing

(note my skepticism)

if that isnt good enough for you - i agree with leshy

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

There is no objective right or wrong, there are merely actions.

Society in general either acknowledges an action to be right or wrong based on a set of values and morals that particular society upholds due to these having been passed on, or because that particular society perceives those to create a situation in which most people can happily coexist. Actions which may be right in one society, may be wrong in another; often the moral value of actions are even debated within a single society itself - often being decided by a majority vote.

I would tend to agree however I would qualify this. Society qua society (lol) by it's very nature would tend towards certain moral beliefs if it's considered desirable for society to exist. For example it would be "wrong" if we wished society to continue to kill every member of that society, as therefore the society would no longer exist. However leshy is quite right, morality is a very debated and confusing topic for many people. Could we then say that the best system of law would be one that enables individuals to pursue their preferred moral choices in so far as this is practically possible?


Edit: Is it absolutely wrong to gangrape a four year old? I would say no. However within certain frameworks it definitely is. If these frameworks are required can we say that in the context of human society the action of gangraping a four year old is inherently wrong? I would say yes.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

In a primitive way morality can be defined as whats best for the indivdual. Now, you can argue that what might be best for an individual would be to kill some one with alot of money and then steal all of it. However, a smart individual would realize that if I did this than other people would also do this and society would degrade into chaos and in the long run my murder would not be what is best for me.

I suppose do unto others as you would have done unto you. Personally I am a christian, so my morality is easy to define....

But what if I kill EvERYONE, and steal all their money! No chaos, no people stealing it back, no more poverty, no more wars, no more people who annoy the crap out of me, no more mother who make you clean your room.

[Structural Integrity]

Oh, and more importantly, no one who disagrees with my morality anymore.

[queball]

Even if you somehow managed to extirpate everyone from Earth, your actions could still be judged as wrong by aliens, or if you killed everything in the universe permanently, you could be judged by your own conscience or by the giant beetle whose dream we live in.

[JonnyBGood]

Beatles don't like me

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Beatles don't like me

Is that why you shot Lennon?

[Superpig #1]

Right and Wrong are merely concepts created by mankind

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

But what if I kill EvERYONE, and steal all their money! No chaos, no people stealing it back, no more poverty, no more wars, no more people who annoy the crap out of me, no more mother who make you clean your room.

Well if you were to kill everyone, than there would be no one make your computer, or run the eletrical plant, or make clothes, or butcher animals, or raise crops, etc. In the end you would of done yourself an injustice and most likely be living in a worst state than if you wouldn't of killed everybody. Therefore killing everybody would not be what is best for yourself because you would be living in a state that is not ideal.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well if you were to kill everyone, than there would be know one make your computer, or run the eletrical plant, or make clothes, or butcher animals, or raise crops, etc. In the end you would of done yourself an injustice and most likely be living in a worst state than if you wouldn't of killed everybody. Therefore killing everybody would not be what is best for yourself because you would be living in a state that is not ideal.

Shut up with your shit logic. If I want to kill everyone I don't care.
By the way, it's "no one", not "know one".

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Is that why you shot Lennon?

No. I shot Lennon because Scousers are a lower form of life and it's my moral duty to perform violent eugenics to keep the gene pool quality up.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

By the way, it's "no one", not "know one".

Ahh thank you for the correction.

[Dante Hicks]

"Universal" notions of right and wrong (in the strictest sense) are obviously wrong. However, we can say, as JBG pointed out, that certain notions of good/bad are condusive to a variety of desired ends - e.g. happiness, peace, etc.

I would suggest that a superior ethics is more in line with our biological human nature. It is possible to imagine a (short-lived) society where sex and any form of sexual relief is completley forbidden. Undoubtedly such a society would be very neuroses ridden and in the long term unable to function (for obvious reasons).

In short, although it's not universal, most people can agree that human happiness (or perhaps healthiness/capacity for happiness is a better term) is the desired end of all politics/ethical action/etc. As such, any actions which are against this goal are probably "wrong" (depending on the context).

[Sunday8pm]

I call bullshit

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No. I shot Lennon because Scousers are a lower form of life and it's my moral duty to perform violent eugenics to keep the gene pool quality up.

I thought the Beatles were from Manchester?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Superpig #1

Right and Wrong are merely concepts created by mankind

On the contrary; in my opinion, morality and the existance of 'right' and 'wrong' are the necesary results of a belief in a divine, perfect being. Morality is incomplete without this foundation: merely the imperfect judgements of imperfect beings.

Further to the discussion in this thread: if there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong', as some argue, does this mean you deny the existance of 'good' and 'bad' also?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Universal" notions of right and wrong (in the strictest sense) are obviously wrong. However, we can say, as JBG pointed out, that certain notions of good/bad are condusive to a variety of desired ends - e.g. happiness, peace, etc.

I would suggest that a superior ethics is more in line with our biological human nature. It is possible to imagine a (short-lived) society where sex and any form of sexual relief is completley forbidden. Undoubtedly such a society would be very neuroses ridden and in the long term unable to function (for obvious reasons).

In short, although it's not universal, most people can agree that human happiness (or perhaps healthiness/capacity for happiness is a better term) is the desired end of all politics/ethical action/etc. As such, any actions which are against this goal are probably "wrong" (depending on the context).

You've been reading 'Brave New World'.

I would ask how you define 'happiness', as it is never a universal thing. However, true and false, in my opinion, are universal concepts - and truth is worth pursuing.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

On the contrary; in my opinion, morality and the existance of 'right' and 'wrong' are the necesary results of a belief in a divine, perfect being. Morality is incomplete without this foundation: merely the imperfect judgements of imperfect beings.

I'd roll my eyes but this is just too much for me to take



PS Mancs, scousers, you should just be glad us Irish have heard of england tomkat.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd roll my eyes but this is just too much for me to take



PS Mancs, scousers, you should just be glad us Irish have heard of england tomkat.

Well, I'd accept your opinion but you fail to disprove mine in any way. Sorry to offend you.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

You've been reading 'Brave New World'.

No, I've never read it.

I would ask how you define 'happiness', as it is never a universal thing. However, true and false, in my opinion, are universal concepts - and truth is worth pursuing.

I'm defining happiness here in an Aristotlean fashion. It's mainly about the capacity for happiness - or pursuit of happiness it says in the Dec of Ind.

True and false are logical concepts, so I suppose you could say they are universal yes. However, they don't presuppose any sort of ethical standards as far as I can see. I could dedicate my existence towards one truth (some sort of scientific endeavour) or the horror of another truth (showing that you can smash an infants skull with a baseball bat).

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Zar

Is there such a thing as 'right' or 'wrong'?

Yes there is

I am inevitably "Right"

You are inevitably "Wrong"

Shows over folks. Come back next week when Zar will provide us with another thread discussing something he has no real background in but can troll like a mother****er if you dare to express an opinion.

Yeh Baby!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Well, I'd accept your opinion but you fail to disprove mine in any way. Sorry to offend you.

I just don't think I could acceptly have that debate again without trolling until one of us die. However for good measure....

On the contrary; in my opinion, morality and the existance of 'right' and 'wrong' are the necesary results of a belief in a divine, perfect being.

This begs the question really. The belief in a divine perfect being is a concept created by mankind.

Morality is incomplete without this foundation: merely the imperfect judgements of imperfect beings.

This I really fail to understand. Firstly we have the existence of a perfect being which leads to some form of perfect (?) morality. This is interpreted by imperfect human beings and somehow doesn't end up imperfect whereas moral systems created by imperfect human beings are inherently imperfect. What system is the result of this perfect being? Why should we even accept the existence of this perfect being without proof? What do you mean by perfection? How in the name of sweet sunny Jesus and his seven dwarves (sorry wrong myth) does the existence of a perfect being (obviously so far away from us lowly humans as to make it almost ridiculous) result in the perfect moral system?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Boogster

On the contrary; in my opinion, morality and the existance of 'right' and 'wrong' are the necesary results of a belief in a divine, perfect being. Morality is incomplete without this foundation: merely the imperfect judgements of imperfect beings.
?

How would God provide a foundation for an 'objective' morality? Even if the Judeo-Christian God existed, the individual subject would still be free to choose whether to obey his moral commandments, or to create his own - why would "X is moral because God said so" be more 'objective' than "X is moral because the government said so"? The most you could claim would be that God has more power to punish/reward people based upon how they obey his commandments, but even then your position would essentially reduce to "Obey God because its in your best interests to do so", which isnt exactly much more objective than my "Do what makes you happy".

[Superpig #1]

This has been stretched out a bit...

[Deepflow]

i would post in this thread

however, im drunk

ill be ok by about 1am though

PREPARE YOURSLEVES

[Superpig #1]

2 hours!!!

[Nadval]

I find this topic slightly flawed. Do numbers exist? Except in the human mind, they don't. The atom doesn't exist, it is simply our way of understanding the concept of the irreducible constituent all matter is made of. It exists to us because it is our theory. Morality is the same. It exists but only as part of the way we think and view things. Right and wrong are our way of deciding what is constructive and what is destructive. To what cause is how it varies in each human.

So to answer your question, right and wrong does exist to us individually, but to an alien or something not human these concepts would have no meaning, however would probably be replaced by hypothetically similar concepts of how to understand and communicate what is constructive and destructive towards whatever cause they fight/aim for. If all humans were fighting for the same cause, then we could say that the same right and wrong exists for all humans, but morality would still only exist as much as numbers do.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Universal" notions of right and wrong (in the strictest sense) are obviously wrong.

was this meant to sound ironic

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

was this meant to sound ironic

heh, no. I meant wrong as in incorrect rather than bad.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I find this topic slightly flawed. Do numbers exist? Except in the human mind, they don't. The atom doesn't exist, it is simply our way of understanding the concept of the irreducible constituent all matter is made of. It exists to us because it is our theory. Morality is the same. It exists but only as part of the way we think and view things. Right and wrong are our way of deciding what is constructive and what is destructive. To what cause is how it varies in each human.
.

I think the phrase "it only exists in the mind" is quite confusing here, and I personally prefer to avoid it. The existence of morality and numbers is solely mental in the sense that they have no location in space-time and are entirely dependent on humans for their existence, but a lot of people have the tendency to associate "only exists in the mind" with subjectivity (in other words, they read "mental construct" as "arbitrary mental construct"). Although the concepts of morality and numbers are 'created' by humans, it doesnt follow that they have no objective basis - the concept of 'number' is derived from objective facts present in our experience of the world. A person would be able to _not_ think in numbers - it's not a case that he could decide "threeness is only a mental construct" and thereafter choose to think '4' whenever he saw three birds flying through the sky. Similarly, a human would be unable to live without accepting some form of moral code - he has the choice of which code to accept (including the creation of his own), but it is an objective fact of the human condition that _some_ choice is necessary if death is to be avoided, and it is also an objective fact that some codes will be better than others for achieving certain ends (taking heroin is objectively wrong if your goal is long term happyness, socialism is objectively wrong if you value human freedom). To take another related example, the qualia of 'redness' only exists in the mind, but it would be silly to claim that this makes it an arbitrary mental/social construct. It is a purely mental phenomenon yes, but its existence is objective in the sense that it is produced by objectively real light interacting with the objectively real apparatus of the human visual system.

[queball]

I hate to be the Platonist, but in what sense are numbers dependent on humans for their existence? Maybe they wouldn't be conceptualised or reified or whatever but morality existed before morality was talked about according to your human condition bit.

Moral values are "like" prices in that different people value things differently and that isn't a big problem.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

I hate to be the Platonist, but in what sense are numbers dependent on humans for their existence? Maybe they wouldn't be conceptualised or reified or whatever but morality existed before morality was talked about according to your human condition bit.
.

Numbers are a product of the interaction of consciousness with the world, I'm not sure what sense it would make to talk about them existing independently. If I view 4 birds flying through the sky, I will group them together and identify them as 'birds', then apply the number 4 to my experience. But this is entirely my decision, I could just have easily identified them as being 'one group' and applied the number 1, '8 wings' and applied the number 8, or '19834' feathers' and applied the number 19834. There is nothing in the flock of birds which forces the number '4' on me - it's all dependent on what mechanism I use to group the components of my experience The act of grouping things together requires consciousness, and numbers can only arise out of groups.

Originally Posted by queball

Maybe they wouldn't be conceptualised or reified or whatever but morality existed before morality was talked about according to your human condition bit.
.

This is correct, sort of. The concept of morality never existed before morality was talked about, but concepts are generally derived from actual experiences and these experiences precede conceptualization. Human life has always required decision making, and conscious decision making always implies values, hence morality.

Originally Posted by queball

Moral values are "like" prices in that different people value things differently and that isn't a big problem.

That's fine, but prices also have an objective basis.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Numbers are a product of the interaction of consciousness with the world, I'm not sure what sense it would make to talk about them existing independently. If I view 4 birds flying through the sky, I will group them together and identify them as 'birds', then apply the number 4 to my experience. But this is entirely my decision, I could just have easily identified them as being 'one group' and applied the number 1, '8 wings' and applied the number 8, or '19834' feathers' and applied the number 19834. There is nothing in the flock of birds which forces the number '4' on me - it's all dependent on what mechanism I use to group the components of my experience The act of grouping things together requires consciousness, and numbers can only arise out of groups.

What are you distinguishing this from? Any concept, or classification, is mental (is it "phenomenal"?), whether it be cardinal or moral or botanical. But some concepts, like "my cactus", supposedly refer to real things, even if it takes a human to recognise that a cactus has identity at all. You said the "existence of morality and numbers", but how are number different from something "real" or "non-mental"? We understand about my cactus by some kind of bootstrapped ontological commitment thing, and numbers are no different - people just learn to understand how to talk about them.

That's fine, but prices also have an objective basis.

Yeah. I'm just going for the obligatory on-topic one-liner.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

You said the "existence of morality and numbers", but how are number different from something "real" or "non-mental"? We understand about my cactus by some kind of bootstrapped ontological commitment thing, and numbers are no different - people just learn to understand how to talk about them.
.

It's normally supposed that cacti would still exist without humans to perceive them. However, groups would not exist without consciousnsss to create them, nor would morality exist without volitional actions.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I thought the Beatles were from Manchester?

You suck

[Nadval]

Nodrog's probably right on the numbers thing. There is ofcourse a limit as to how far numbers exist. They exist to us as a way of understanding the concept of quantity, without humans they would have no existance. Subjectively, they exist. Morality is the same, that was my point.

I've heard theories that morals were developed through evolution to help humans survive together, it is undoubtable that humans would be in a much better condition if they all worked together, that is idyllic to us because we know all humans do not have morals based on working together - that supports the argument that morals are a part of evolution. I'm not sure where i stand on this, I'd have to think about it some more.

[queball]

Morality refers to volitional entities, it classifies actions that would not exist if humans were removed. Groups don't refer to concepts, they are independent of the material world, to an algebraist at least.