100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > jasonpfaff
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
you dont think our basic will to survive and thrive can possibly have anything to do with what we "descide" is right? why dont we murder? because it hurts us as a whole. its unhealthy for society to go about murdering people. why do we have laws? to protect us. key word "us" humankind I would think the basic instinct to survive would be a motivator behind forming a law on the books making murder illegal. But I think it takes a certain amount of human reasoning to form a society that is complex enough to have laws. Thus, the root being the thought and reasoning, not just the instinct to survive. well i absolutly agree with you as far as reason goes, and i think in a round about way were saying the same thing. reason is absolutly crucial to justice, and justice is ultimatly the protection and preservation of whats in the best intrest of humanity. hmmm ill have to think on that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
Cheers to you guys! It's getting late here.  Great topic BTW!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
now that was what i was looking for. thank you if right and wrong were were in born as you said, no as i said ( =, than their would be very little injust in the world. but dont you think the survival and prosparity of our speices has any thing to do with right and wrong. in the "civilized" or "free" world we live in, all of our laws and justice systems are similar. not exact maby but similar. murder, rape, stealing... is it possible biology has any thing to do with where we got those ideas? other wise we would destroy ourselves right? Murder, rape, stealing, and things that are "against the law" are determined to be in that category because of the ethical system of laws we have in this country (and other countries also have similar things in their legal systems.) Legal systems develop in a culture as a matter of collective agreements. The human ability to reason chooses to set up a protection for the common good in the form of what we call "laws." Laws are reactionary vessels put in place by a society as a reaction to what most individuals would agree are unacceptible human behaviors. If there were no ethics, then there would be no laws, and none of these things would be considered illegal or bad. But it is the collective agreement of several members within a society, to set up laws that list and/or name the specifics of criminal activities, etc. but why? why do we decside to make these laws? because there key in protecting our best intrest as a whole. what driving force allows us to decside these laws? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
if all men or woman did the right thing, than we would have no use for right and wrong anyways. just like a cow, certain sisuations can disrupt that natural balance. Cows do not have the ability of cognitive thought. They do not and cannot formally reason. They cannot choose between right and wrong. Right and wrong are two ethical choices reserved for humans. A cat can determine to eat her young, but still, it is not a cognitive thought that motivates her. It is instinct, no more. It is not an ethical choice for the cat to eat her kittens, a cat does not have the ability to reason. Right and wrong demand the ability to reason. Reasoning brains are reserved for humans only. Unless of course you want to re-write the science of psychology all together... The point i was trying to make there is that cattle, kittins or humans can can become mentaly unbalanced by tramatic events. (personaly as a cattleman i shudder at the thought of cattle being able to reason, that could go bad for me in alot of ways) you dont think our basic will to survive and thrive can possibly have anything to do with what we "descide" is right? why dont we murder? because it hurts us as a whole. its unhealthy for society to go about murdering people. why do we have laws? to protect us. key word "us" humankind |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
keep in mind were talking about human kind here. not wolves or lions... its human nature for a male to protect his wife and children, its human nature for woman to love and care for her babies(not to say they both cant do either or) its human nature for the strongest to lead (intelectualy or other wise) rape, murder, stealing, all that can be tied to that biological wiring) i dont think people put enough stock in us as humans. thank you creative soul for your succinct perspective, im glad someone can get their point across without a 5 page lecture ( = Hmmm... if you are saying it is human nature for a male to protect his wife and children, then it might be assumed a man who abandons his wife and children does so because he has been nurtued in that fashion? Nature vs. nurture. Then let us assume women who leave their babies in dumpsters do so because they were nurtured to do so? I don't agree that it is nature that causes the strong to lead. At the time of the American Revolution there were two philosophical schools of thought. One was that only certain people were born to lead... i.e. the Monarchy... and the other school of thought taken on by the fore-fathers was that all men are created equal. No one is born strong or weak. We are all equally born infants who crave their mother's milk. Nature has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics are learned and thus are a trait of nurture, not an in-born natural thing. No one is by nature right and the same, no one by nature is wrong. Right and wrong are cognitive functions of the human brain that require psychological development to achieve. The atmosphere of a new baby, the culture it is born into, these things mold the ethical structure of that particular human mind. It is by cognition, thought, and the ability to reason that some figure out how to take or get the advantage on others and pose as "leaders." It is not an in-born, natural state. It is a learned behavior, stemming from the individual's level of nuturing. now that was what i was looking for. thank you if right and wrong were were in born as you said, no as i said ( =, than their would be very little injust in the world. but dont you think the survival and prosparity of our speices has any thing to do with right and wrong. in the "civilized" or "free" world we live in, all of our laws and justice systems are similar. not exact maby but similar. murder, rape, stealing... is it possible biology has any thing to do with where we got those ideas? other wise we would destroy ourselves right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
if all men or woman did the right thing, than we would have no use for right and wrong anyways. just like a cow, certain sisuations can disrupt that natural balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
...its human nature for a male to protect his wife and children, That is not necessarily true. its human nature for woman to love and care for her babies(not to say they both cant do either or) Not necessarily true. its human nature for the strongest to lead (intelectualy or other wise) Perhaps by brute force and or fear, again... That is not necessarily true. rape, murder, stealing, all that can be tied to that biological wiring) i dont think people put enough stock in us as humans. Not necessarily true either. Specific experience can play a huge role outside of physiological elements. how so? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
But you have nothing to base it on other than your own moral code, which would always mean you found yourself to be superior morally. Acknowledging differences does not equate to assessing superiority. CreativeSoul said... Absolute morality is unnecessary for judgment. And? How does that equate to assessing superiority? I can acknowledge the fact that another has a different morality code, without calling it less or worse or wrong. Can't I?  Better yet... haven't I? Seriously? No, I'm nope. This post was a joke. You cannot possibly be serious that you can JUDGE without saying one thing is better than another. I'm assuming you are simply pulling my leg and I'll see you another day my friend. The greeks have a word for allowing your emotions to overwelm you. its called possession. It always ends badly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
can it be possible, that there is a natural, instinctual, .... biological sense of right? (i prefer to use just, but the english language is not very expansive when it comes to breaking things apart) for example, a mother protecting her child. it is wired into her genes(cow, woman, mare..)to protect that child from harm. I do not find any reason to believe in a biological sense of 'right'. Instincts are often animalistic and should be subdued through our sense of morality. I agree instintual right may not always be the best. Instincts can lead us to act on anger or jealousy for example and that will not come out well in the end. good point, i agree, ill scratch the instinct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
keep in mind were talking about human kind here. not wolves or lions...
its human nature for a male to protect his wife and children, its human nature for woman to love and care for her babies(not to say they both cant do either or) its human nature for the strongest to lead (intelectualy or other wise) rape, murder, stealing, all that can be tied to that biological wiring) i dont think people put enough stock in us as humans. thank you creative soul for your succinct perspective, im glad someone can get their point across without a 5 page lecture ( = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
One of mans fatal flaws i believe is complicating things.
Most everyone in here is saying the same thing, just worded different. we have already established right and wrong is a matter of interpritation and judgment the question is, can it be possible, that there is a natural, instinctual, .... biological sense of right? (i prefer to use just, but the english language is not very expansive when it comes to breaking things apart) for example, a mother protecting her child. it is wired into her genes(cow, woman, mare..)to protect that child from harm. things happen sometimes that can disrupt that natural sense of R vs W IE a cow that has had tramatic experiences, especialy when calving, is usualy a bad mother and has to be repaired or culled(sold to slaughter) if thats the case, than that natural R vs W is not absolute (i hesitate to use that word) that is the best argument i have to counter my own argument. but i have an argument to counter that one to. not socialy, not spiritualy, but biologicly. i dont want to here what the 'right' answer is(spider), i want to discuss weather or not my argument is plausible...without bloodshed preferably ( = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
Partisan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Mon 09/28/09 08:19 PM
|
|
Right or wrong is a matter of interpritation and judgment. Our different experiences and environments cause us to see things differently. IE im pretty sure Binladden (excuse my spelling) thinks he did the right thing. so who decides whos right or wrong? the best thing i can come up with is justice. lets say justice is the preservation and protection of whats in the best intrest of the human race. instead of asking your self 'did i do the right thing?' ask your self 'is what im doing just?' once you put justice in the equazion, its no longer about you or me, but us, and the relitive relationship we have with humankind. IE we dont hit woman because... the same reason we dont hit cows or mares(no offence ment i have nothing but the utmost respect for woman) because it lessens the flow of milk, and can hurt reproduction which is detremental to the human race. thoughts any one? i think the only way to validate what you believe is to chalange it, so feel free to counter my argument ( : You are definitely right..lol that the right and wrong of things are subjective. Bin laden, of course, felt right for his cause to do what he did or didn't do depending on the information given. According to religious folks homosexuality is wrong, not the truth but to hear them tell it. Now, wrong for them in their personal life, maybe, they can follow the churches doctrine and not be gay themselves but they have no right over others to dictate to them if they be gay or not. So when they feel they are right they are wrong...lol If killing is wrong, why is it only right when a government does it? Something to think about huh? The list can go on and on. Those folks who see the world in right and wrong or black and white are our non visionaries in this world. They have to live by a set of rules or they are lost. Ridigity breeds stagnation. thank you do you have any critiquing or constructive critism about my argument? (the very first post) how do you guys think my argument structure is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
|
|
thank you? do you have any critiquing or constructive critism about my argument? (the very first post)
how do you guys think my argument structure is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Man can surpass any God!
|
|
The error is in assuming that God is incapable of feeling fear. He can choose to feel fear if he wants. Just as he can choose to be unable to pick up the rock if he wants. Sky, I am only quoting you because what you wrote brought up a question in me .. my comments are just part of the discussion of the OP. How can one experience if they are all. We need something to brush up against, something to react to in order to 'experience'. What does up even mean if there is no down? What is down if there is no gravity? We are the ones living in a world of contrasts, of duality, of opposites. This God, source, universe ... how can it know separate if it is all of it? How can it experience fear when it is not fearful nor courageous but holds the essence of all of it. According to the fundamental premise of that pantheistic philosophy, any question based on god having or being only one “side” is completely meaningless. So you’re absolutely right and “courage” is a meaningless concept when applied to god in that context. Or another was of expressing it could be that because god is everything, he must necessarily be both infinitely courageous and infinitely fearful. And since no human could be either, no human could "rise above god" through courage. weather hes every thing or not, even if hes couragous(which he cant logicaly be) its still doesnt hold a candle any where near a couragous man. IE its a great thing for a man to give uhis life for his country, very noble and brave. but is it extra ordinary? no its not. its whats expected of him, and its in man nature to protect, defend, or attack. what is extraordinary, and a perfect example of selfless courage, is a woman who stands strong with self poise and pride, while her man or child goes off to war. That is completely against a mother or wifes nature, and that is courage. God, or Achillies, or superman are great sure, but there not doing any thing extra ordinary by being strong or couragous are they? (not that they dont deserve praise) so even if God 'chose' to feel fear, man did so knowing that he is mortal and may die, which is in fact Superior |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Man can surpass any God!
|
|
But he cant Die so he cant fear.
( = if he is omnipotent, than theres no way he can die right? if his power is unlimited, than how can he possibly die or feel fear. i guess he could if he wanted to, but than hes not omnipotent. no, i think God cant feel fear |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Man can surpass any God!
|
|
no ma am its not, look up the definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Right vs. Wrong
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Mon 09/28/09 12:30 AM
|
|
sky, i would say it depends on the reason he is imprisoned.
if his actions were wrong (detrimental to the survival and prosperity of the human race) than it is right. if he murdered, he should be imprisoned or executed I do how ever understand your point of view. your last statment is what got me thinking about the whole thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Man can surpass any God!
|
|
I think someone has been staying up too long   i think your probably right. ( = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Man can surpass any God!
|
|
So God cant be couragous can he? we all know men can.
dont we want our children to be better than us? the next generation should always be stronger right? (of course thats not always the case) so wouldnt it make sense for God to want the same for us? A man can rais himself higher than any God through courage. true and pure selfless courage |
|
|
|
|
Previous
