Is there a Right or Wrong?

Philosophy
41

@mriana

"Not the way I understood it as written and it doesn’t answer the altruism question...." - mriana
Let me clarify:
  • "Apropriate preventive measures..." with this i meant some actions that by law would have been applied anyway. Like imprisonment, life imprisonment, death sentence. Anything that would prevent the crime from happening again.
  • "...would be welcomed, enforced and adviced..." i would add "demanded" to it.
  • "...as long as they would be useful and efficient...." means as long as they would be functioning and useful and would indeed prevent another crime from happening again.
  • "...ignoring the rule on my part would come into consideration as well, but it’s propably no worth, going against it...." the consideration of breaking the rule/law in order to ensure such a crime would not happen again. As well the conclusion that it werent worth the risk and consequences to break the law.
Altruism isn't my main motivation, but i find it quite appropriate in many situations. Therefore I do act altruistic quite some time in my personal enviroment. Perhaps this is indeed a "...a lack altruism..."-mriana or even something worse.

 

"Your replies do not lead me to conclude it’s reality being faced. What happens in one area could happen in another. Keep in mind Dahmer moved around in his years of carnage and saying, “well it affected those people, but it didn’t/doesn’t affect me” is, IMO, not facing reality and shows lack of altruism." - mriana
I assume you refer to those:
"What i would do in the first place would be assuring that something like that never could happen from the start, with all my power and abilities at proposal. If it would happen anyway, well i had to look reality in the eye and accept my incapability to enforce my interests in that regard. – Thats just assumed my interest would be, to keep my would be son, out of this kind of harm. Something i do presume to be so (keeping out of harm)." - didirius #345847

I guess it was quite a problem for most involved in that cases, but sins i’m not involved in them, its not a concern of mine. So i don’t see any right/justification for me to interfere with them in any way. - didirius #345843


Let me clarify:

  • "...drugged him, and killed him...." - mriana #345844
  • "...If it would happen anyway, well i had to look reality in the eye and accept my incapability to enforce my interests in that regard. ..." - didirius #345847
  • "So you believe in fate?" - mriana #345861
  • "I don’t think facing reality as it is, has something to do with fate." - didirius #345871
I consider myself not being able to change the past, so i would have to accept the fact that my son is dead, without that i could anything do against it. That's why i meant to have to look reality in the eye and accept it/face it.
"...What happens in one area could happen in another. Keep in mind Dahmer moved around in his years of carnage and saying,..."- mriana
Indeed, it could happen an any other area again.
"...“well it affected those people, but it didn’t/doesn’t affect me” is, IMO, not facing reality..." - mriana
In fact it didn't affected me nor my personal enviroment. Because it didn't happend to me nor my Personal Enviroment*. And I don't see myself nor my PE* threatend by it. That's why i think i don't have the (in my opinion for only me) arrogant "...right/justification for me to interfere with them in any way." - didirius - it's my way to show respect and not to interfere where i not belong.

 

"From what I understood from your response, it sounds to me you think it is OK to murder another, even outside of self-defense. I’m hoping I misunderstood you. If I didn’t misunderstand you, then I think the issue is more than a lack altruism, but it’s not fair to go there because ..." - mriana
I might triple down on a point from earlier #345657. I tend to align my personal subjective POV to my unterstanding of the objective truth until my understanding proves it false and I re-align. About murder i think in regard to the diffrent frameworks: its a break of social norm, law, ethics, etc. ; in common sence killing is inappropriate, during self defence and involuntary manslaughter unfortunately. However, universally is murder neiter right nor wrong because there is no universal framework to judge from. So I say, aligned to my knowledge of objective truth, personal to me it is not right and not wrong, it is something that is possible to happen.
"...Something tells me there is a communication issue here." - mriana
I thank you for the chance to undo the misunderstandings. I hope I was sufficiently accurate by clearing them without creating new ones.
"...as Lausten said, “It’s getting hard to take you seriously.” It could be there is no communication problem and it is actually a case of word/mind games, which could be just as bad...." - mriana
@lausten and @mriana With all the honesty you can affor to entitle me, and all the honesty I have. I was never ever trying nor intending to deceive you with "word/mind games" or anything else. I did made such an impression and I am very sorry about it and I apologize. It is true I'm tryinig to be polite. My way to formulate, discuss and comment are somewhat messy. English is not my native language and I assume my writing/spelling/grammar may be terrible as well , I also don't know every according custom of youre culture so I might have hurt, broken or insulted them unintentionally, i apologize.

 

42
I consider myself not being able to change the past, so i would have to accept the fact that my son is dead, --d
This is no way to build a system of ethics. If everything that happens is something you could just live with, then there is no basis for determining how to act. I realize after some time you could learn to live with the death of loved one, but there is still pain in the time that grieving process occurs.
Because it didn’t happend to me nor my Personal Enviroment*
Also a bad premise to build an ethical upon. Instead, think of a world in whatever form you want, but consider that you, didirius could be planted anywhere in that world. If there is suffering in one place but not another, then you might be the one who suffers. So, is that the world you want?
where i not belong.
How do you know where you belong?
I was never ever trying nor intending to deceive you with “word/mind games” or anything else.
You could not intend to deceive yet still be non-serious. It doesn’t seem you think through the consequences of your ideas, seriously.
43
If everything that happens is something you could just live with, then there is no basis for determining how to act. -lausten
The constant that you live / exist next to and with everything should stand. How you live I think is your decision. And yes, there is no proper higher decision-making basis in the universal sense about what desicion to make. I suspect that is precisely why ethics and morals were created.
If there is suffering in one place but not another, then you might be the one who suffers. So, is that the world you want?-L
The world in which there is different subjective suffering in different places is the world in which we live. If I suffer, then one could say thats bad luck. If I suffer, then so be it. If I can change it and I want to, then I'll change it. If I can't change it, I'll accept it. I wouldn't have any other choice to do anything else, would I? - Defiing something I couldn't change anyway?

Suffering is a perception of the mind, physical based, but still a subjective perception. Everyone has to deal with it alone in the end.

How do you know where you belong?-L
Point granted.

It is my consideration not to get involved where I am not already involved unless I choose to get involved or I get involved by accident. I don’t know where I will or won’t belong in the future. I am where I am and this is the only basic logical answer I have.

 

This is no way to build a system of ethics. / Also a bad premise to build an ethical upon.-L
I do not act simply just upon ethics and morals, I act primarly upon my own mind, cause there is no universally ethic I could act upon. Or rather acting upoon my own mind is the only uiniversally "ethic" I found yet.

Its not about to create any ethical system, but to show and discuss the difference between manmade ethics and universally truth.-Its probably not what you ment but anyway.

You could not intend to deceive yet still be non-serious. It doesn’t seem you think through the consequences of your ideas, seriously.-L
That's what you mean. Oops. I'll try to conciderate more careful. Though I have to prove myself actions through time.

 

 

44

@didirius

I thank you for the chance to undo the misunderstandings. I hope I was sufficiently accurate by clearing them without creating new ones.

You’re welcome, but I still get a feeling there is a language difference, as though English isn’t your first language. You did clear up your thoughts on the matter though.

English is not my native language and I assume my writing/spelling/grammar may be terrible as well , I also don’t know every according custom of youre culture so I might have hurt, broken or insulted them unintentionally, i apologize.

And there it is. I somehow had that feeling as I said above. There was no insult, I just had a feeling there was a language barrier happening. You turned some d’s in to t’s or was it vice versa… I can’t find it now. Then there were a few other errors someone’s who first language was not English. I’m thinking possibly a Hindi speaker or possibly a Spanish speaker. That said, maybe it isn’t word/mind games. Maybe it is a cultural and language difference.

The world in which there is different subjective suffering in different places is the world in which we live. If I suffer, then one could say thats bad luck. If I suffer, then so be it.

Now I am thinking Indian (India). Not that it matters. Having someone from a different country with a different cultural background would be nice to have on the forum, if nothing more for cultural exchange. I’m seeing a philosophy that’s different from the Western world, that much is certain.

45

@mriana

I’m thinking possibly a Hindi speaker or possibly a Spanish speaker. / Now I am thinking Indian (India).-mriana
In order I not posing as someone from another culture / country. I'm from central europe, german speaking.
I just had a feeling there was a language barrier happening.-m
German is my mothertounge, and enghlish I did learn recently on my own, mainly verbal/acustic. That's why I have to learn even more about the fine tuining of english grammar in writing. - From now on I'll use a translation-tool in addition. In order to reduce further such mistakes.
Not that it matters. Having someone from a different country with a different cultural background would be nice to have on the forum, if nothing more for cultural exchange. I’m seeing a philosophy that’s different from the Western world, that much is certain.-m
I would like to stay if you'd like to have me. Even though I'm not Indian.

About the cultural diffrences. I didn’t let my self much influence by any culture, so I had to develope sort of my own philosophy and use anything useful to understand and grasp the world around me. I use mainly logical reasoning because its seems to be the savest bet. And thus does it happen that my view correlates with one of another culture in some instances. Even though I might belong to none culture in particular.

This post sounds like belonging into the introduction category. Do you mind if I add it in?

46
I would like to stay if you’d like to have me. Even though I’m not Indian. --D
If you meant to make a joke, that’s a good one. Yes, please hang around. Just because I challenge people, it doesn’t mean I don’t like them or don’t enjoy their posts.
I wouldn’t have any other choice to do anything else, would I? -D
Within the limitations of free will, yes, you can change. Acceptance is a good thing, but if slaves accepted their fate, we wouldn’t have the democracies we now have.

I think we need to decide what this conversation is about. If it is the question of whether the universe provides a universal right and wrong, and we can discern it, then, the conversation is over, the answer is no. If the question is, can we, as limited humans, create a system that defines right and wrong in a way that promotes happiness and flourishing for more humans, then, my opinion is; yes.

I act primarly upon my own mind, cause there is no universally ethic
We might be agreeing here, but using different words. When you say “my own mind”, I think that means the thoughts you have based on a combination of instinct that comes from evolution plus culture that teaches you things starting at an early age, an age when it is difficult to sort out how that culture works.
47

@didirius

I would like to stay if you’d like to have me. Even though I’m not Indian.

alles gut. Doesn’t matter where you’re from, I was just trying to penpoint possible countries you might be from. I haven’t used German since high school though, so my ability to speak and write it is almost non-existent.

About the cultural diffrences. I didn’t let my self much influence by any culture, so I had to develope sort of my own philosophy and use anything useful to understand and grasp the world around me.

You’ll be surprised just how much you really are influenced by your culture and how much you fight against parts of the culture you think needs to change.

48
Within the limitations of free will, yes, you can change. Acceptance is a good thing, but if slaves accepted their fate, we wouldn’t have the democracies we now have.-laust
The part to not having any choise is just for theoretical completeness. In practical real life there is always a choise. Obviously only as long one hase an according capable decition making organ in a physical sense.
I think we need to decide what this conversation is about. If it is the question of whether the universe provides a universal right and wrong, and we can discern it, then, the conversation is over, the answer is no. If the question is, can we, as limited humans, create a system that defines right and wrong in a way that promotes happiness and flourishing for more humans, then, my opinion is; yes.-laust
Indeed, but because "limited humans" have already made such a ethical system that defines right and wrong. Is the answer yes and the conversation also over. My last question about this would only be, are humans aware of the difference to objective truth and the fact that they have a selfmade ethical system which they could adapt at will?
We might be agreeing here, but using different words. When you say “my own mind”, I think that means the thoughts you have based on a combination of instinct that comes from evolution plus culture... - laust
Yes we agree basically, I just like to add the point and focus on "self-awareness" which is capable to change the effect of said bases (instinct, culture) on the mind/thoughts.

 

@mriana alles gut. Doesn’t matter where you’re from, I was just trying to penpoint possible countries you might be from. I haven’t used German since high school though, so my ability to speak and write it is almost non-existent.
kein Problem/no problem.?
49

Ok so here’s a good one we can relate to in hindsight and think about how we’d react and what we’d do. I think we all agree Hitler was a murderous dictator who had millions killed. If you saw history repeating itself (no not referring to the dotard we just ousted out of the U.S. highest office) in your country, wouldn’t you join like minded people and try to stop it from happening again? Many people, in the U.S., saw what the dotard was doing, which reminded many of what Hitler did in Europe, and we made every effort to remove the dotard and stop history repeating itself here in the U.S. The dotard (that orange creature that took over the U.S. White House, who’s name I won’t say) still had thousands killed- either by a virus or in detention centers (some via the virus, others the flu, and still others neglect). We stopped the possibility of a “Hitler” here and I honestly would like to believe many Germans would stop it happening again also if they saw the beginnings of it there. To do otherwise, IMO, would be wrong. I’m sure that begs the question about the first time and there was a lot of psychological answers as to why those who noticed didn’t do anything, including fear. Sitting back and not stopping people like the dotard, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc can get people, including oneself killed. Then again, speaking out could get one killed too. It all depends on which risk one wants to take, but I think I’d say something before they came for my family and me. In my case, I did speak out and voted, when it came to the dotard’s crimes against humanity, but the question is, what would you do if some dictator took over and acted like Hitler or the dotard or Stalin etc.

“First they came . . .” by Martin Niemoller R.T. Smith

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

— Martin Niemöller

50
My last question about this would only be, are humans aware of the difference to objective truth and the fact that they have a selfmade ethical system which they could adapt at will?
Right and wrong are human symbolic terms for universal equivalence in "symmetry" and "symmetry breaking", each function inducing a different state of "order" (good) or "chaos" (bad), or is that too far fetched ?
51
Is the answer yes and the conversation also over. -- D
Well, it could be, but once you get that answer, I'd think you would want to move on to how we go about defining right and wrong. If we could easily agree on something, then, we could more certainly say that's possible for everyone to agree. But, we'd probably be able to go on forever discussing just what is right and what is wrong.
52
Treat others how you want to be treated
This is seen as the golden rule, and it is most of the time.

But it can be a recipe for disaster when sets of morales are different.

I remember a Science-Fiction novel. A military force attacks the Federation and it is soon discovered the prisoners they take are odiously tortured. Then in a second time, it is discovered that these people regularly torture each others and themselves. For them it is a proof of valor, among others motives. In fact, they are applying the golden rule.

This is an extreme and fictional exemple.

In fact, from the point of view of morale, right and wrong are largely socially determined.

Some basic rules are common to most societies, as they are needed for the society to exist. Beyond that …

And yet, for instance the rule which says that one must not kill has known and still knows many exceptions.

One difficulty is that the meaning of the words or the frame in which they are used can change from society to society.

Traditionally, for the religions of the book, homosexuality is a sin. It is defined as sexual relationship between two people of same sex.

For the Romans, the dividing limit was between passive and active role. To be active was acting manly, to be passive was acting in an effeminate way. And that was forbidden to a free Roman citizen. Even if the rule was broken.

For Seneca, passivity is a necessity for the slave, a duty for the freed, and an infamy for the free.

And, up to 14 years old, a boy could be a passive object of sex, as he was not still a man. But the rape of a free man was a crime. Raping a male citizen of a taken city was routine.

Who is right, who is wrong ? Nowadays, according our standards, both are wrong except for prohibiting the rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Male%E2%80%93male_sex

Sorry if this link is in french:

https://www.persee.fr/doc/comm_0588-8018_1982_num_35_1_1519

Paul Veyne is one of the top French historian.

https://booksandideas.net/The-Curious-Monsieur-Veyne.html

 

53

@Mriana Indeed that generally is was would and did happen. In the case of having some crazy evil “genius” overtake the country there are three main options to choose from. Jump on the train, dodge the train, get under the train. From every of those stanpoints is a unique possibility to stop/sabutage the train or pushing it on.

About that dotard you mentioned (I may have a knowledge gap) but I don’t remember the U.S. ever having someone quite like hitler, with the soul intention to industrially exterminate and wipe out entire cultures. It would be more like the KKK taking over everything lead by a calculating, charismatic speaker, megalomaniac with completely crazy almost hypnotical little dark eyes. And then doing their “duty” to exterminate everithing they don’t like.

Hitler was in that way somewhat unique to other “usual” dictators, he didn’t just wanted to be “king” of his own little realm. In the end he wanted to reshape the entire human race to his liking. - kinda like a movie super villain. I don’t know of some one else (dead or alive) ever wanted to go that far.

  • Well I strayed from the subject -
Right and wrong are human symbolic terms for universal equivalence in “symmetry” and “symmetry breaking”, each function inducing a different state of “order” (good) or “chaos” (bad), or is that too far fetched ?-write4u
The formulation is maybe a bit fetched?, but the meaning seems to be ok. symmetry = right to symmetry / symmetry breaking = false to symmetry . And with that is the generally human interpretation to good/bad right/wrong in a nutshell.

 

Well, it could be, but once you get that answer, I’d think you would want to move on to how we go about defining right and wrong. If we could easily agree on something, then, we could more certainly say that’s possible for everyone to agree. But, we’d probably be able to go on forever discussing just what is right and what is wrong.-Lausten
I guess we have to define what goal the ethic should have and then determen by which exact ethical standarts we can achieve this goal.
54

@didirius

About that dotard you mentioned (I may have a knowledge gap) but I don’t remember the U.S. ever having someone quite like hitler, with the soul intention to industrially exterminate and wipe out entire cultures.

Yes, you do have a knowledge gap for even Jewish people could see the similarities between the Orange creature (dotard) and Hitler. He had families separated, caged, not even caring if they died or how sick they got, and didn’t even try to change it. The dotard was a wannabe dic[tator], who didn’t care how many people died from COVID-19 and made no effort to make it easy to get tested or vaccinated when vaccine came out, and he even encouraged people to run around like stupid idiots without mask, making the virus a political thing- if you wore a mask you’re a democrat following the CDC, a pansy afraid for getting a potentially deadly disease and eventually, if you wore a mask, you were a Biden supporter. He encouraged his white followers to do harm, if not even kill, people of colour, calling them “good people” and if you disagreed with him then you were a bad person attempting to destroy his agenda. He managed to make the virus insidiousness kill more Blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos than whites, if they were hospitalized (a nurse in Texas spoke out before she died of COVID). The virus has killed more people of colour than whites. Many of his Secret Service people got COVID-19 because of his insistence of no masks (I would have said, “I don’t care what you want, I’m doing as the CDC suggests and wearing a mask”, but he would have fired me and I wouldn’t care). He encouraged voter suppression (still is encouraging it for that matter), denied election results, and encouraged his follower to attempt a coup. He set his courts and cabinets to do his bidding for possibly decades. So far he’s failed, but he didn’t fail at murdering thousands of people. For example, many of the 500,000 deaths from COVID during his reign could have been prevented and the number would have been a lot lower. 500,000 people didn’t have to die from COVID. Latinos, especially children and babies, who he had caged and separated from family, didn’t have to die from the flu, COVID, dehydration, malnutrition, neglect, etc. If we had not succeeded in voting the dotard out, more would have died and things would have been much worse than they are now. Things are getting better now, except in states where the dotard followers still have power, such as Missouri. Guv’nors who follow the dotard are fighting vaccinations (some of us in Missouri managed to get fully vaccinated, but it was difficult) causing cases to soar again, fighting gun control laws (it’s a free-for-all in Missouri, unless a seller wants to be fined by the stupid guv’nor who caught COVID with the dotard, who lied to the masses, because as prez he got better care than most), fighting almost everything President Biden is doing to improve the nation. The reason why vaccination is so slow is because too many stupid people believe it’s better to catch the disease, not believing they could die, and believing that the vaccine places a chip in them for the government to spy on them (rolling eyes) and/or that the side effects of the vaccine are worse than disease (rolling eyes). Now the dotard may not have killed as many people as Hitler while he had power, but he did kill a lot people, mostly minorities.

Hitler was in that way somewhat unique to other “usual” dictators, he didn’t just wanted to be “king” of his own little realm. In the end he wanted to reshape the entire human race to his liking. – kinda like a movie super villain. I don’t know of some one else (dead or alive) ever wanted to go that far.

The dotard tried to make the U.S. the same way AND wanted all the power, not allowing anyone to disagree with what he did or said or wanted.

55

Post #345988 has just been cleared by moderation. Thanks.

56
"Treat others how you want to be treated" This is seen as the golden rule, and it is most of the time. -morgan
I think this is a adequate rule of the thumb, like you shown can it be vague. The more precise of an action the ethic has to describe/guide the more difficulty it gets to define it. Thats why I prefer to leave the ethical definition in a main goal and don't formulate every little bit, so it can apply to a broather range with ease.

In my opinion something like: enshure the continuing existence/survival of the human race at a whole without inflicting unnessesery suffering. The precise interpretation in individual cases are open for interpretaion. But something like random murder, rape,“unnessesery suffering” etc. would be unnessecery to enshure human survival and therefore not approved.

In the end it depends what you want your main goal to be. This(enshuring human survival) is only a suggestion.

 

Yes, you do have a knowledge gap for even Jewish people could see the similarities between the Orange creature (dotard) and Hitler. -mriana
@mriana Although I don't question what you told. I think we slightly disagree concerning the difference in severity between massive active persecution, active industrialised mass-extermination and semi active "not even caring" "letting it happen". But for me differences of opinion are fine.

To be clear and not getting missunderstood: I don’t argue about what maybe would have happend in “another past/future” I don’t know the potential of “the wig”/“dotard” as well as you do. And I don’t argue what did happen. My point is how active and direct the acts were ordered/executed, and what kind of acts that were.

57

Despite all the bad things I think about Trump, he is not Hitler and, when he was president, USA were not the 1936 Germany. USA are a state where the law is implemented by independent courts which apply the great principles.

Trump could not stage a putsch to stay in power, or if he did it, he failed. His Vice-President did not obey him and neither did some Republican high level responsable in some states.

I admit that the possibility of any democratic state, USA or France included, become a totalitarian state exists, but we are not there and some steps must be climbed first.

 

58

. It is simple …

. Remember this criterion always: whatsoever comes out of your spontaneity is right. There exists no other criterion of right and wrong. Whatsoever comes out of the moment, your alive response to it is good. Nothing else is good – there exists no other criterion for good and bad …

. So the foundational teaching of all those who have known is: be alert and spontaneous, and whatsoever happens out of your spontaneous alertness is right, and whatsoever happens out of your sleep, unconsciousness, is wrong. Whatsoever you do unconsciously is wrong – whatsoever you do with awareness is right. Right and wrong is not a distinction between objects; right and wrong is a distinction between consciousnesses.

59

. According to my perspective, whatsoever you do unconsciously is wrong – whatsoever you do with awareness is right. Right and wrong is not a distinction between objects; right and wrong is a distinction between consciousnesses.

. Remember this criterion always: whatsoever comes out of your spontaneity is right. There exists no other criterion of right and wrong. Whatsoever comes out of the moment, your alive response to it is good. Nothing else is good – there exists no other criterion for good and bad …

. So the foundational teaching of all those who have known is: be alert and spontaneous, and whatsoever happens out of your spontaneous alertness is right, and whatsoever happens out of your sleep, unconsciousness, is wrong.

60
According to my perspective, whatsoever you do unconsciously is wrong – whatsoever you do with awareness is right. Right and wrong is not a distinction between objects; right and wrong is a distinction between consciousnesses.
I disagree with that. If anything, it is the other way around. Witness homeostasis. It is a sub-conscious function of the brain, but it is what keeps your body alive and functioning.

When you receive anesthetics, the conscious mind that is You disappears. Yet your subconscious mind still remains functional, else you’d be dead in a few minutes.

So you may be unable to make any conscious decisions, yet your subconscious mind remains active and in control of “everything”.