Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 … 29 30 Next

Topic: Right vs. Wrong
Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 07:50 PM
Without a moral code there is no right and wrong. Moral code determines what is right or wrong. I can only steal if the the moral code says to take it and not pay for it is stealing. I can only committ adultery if the moral code says it is adultery otherwise I am free to have sex with whomever I choose with no judgements. Moral code is the base and right or wrong comes after it. Take a toy from an infant and they will cry. They innately understand their right to property. That covers stealing. You are still putting the cart before the horse. Now that analogy is not even slightly close. I can take a toy from a child in a certain way and the child will give it up willingly. A child doesn't understand their right to property, they know they like it and what to keep it for a while...lol Moral code is the determination of right and wrong and it is created by a group of people with the power to do so.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Mon 09/28/09 07:52 PM
Without a moral code there is no right and wrong. Moral code determines what is right or wrong. I can only steal if the the moral code says to take it and not pay for it is stealing. I can only committ adultery if the moral code says it is adultery otherwise I am free to have sex with whomever I choose with no judgements. Moral code is the base and right or wrong comes after it. Take a toy from an infant and they will cry. They innately understand their right to property. That covers stealing. You are still putting the cart before the horse. I think that argument is patently illogical. But I have to side with Spider on this one. I consider morals to be "agreed upon rules of right and wrong conduct". Now before any agreement can be made, there must first be some concept of right/wrong to agree upon. But then, that is all based on my own opinion as to what morals are. You're opinion may vary.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 09/28/09 07:52 PM
Now that analogy is not even slightly close. I can take a toy from a child in a certain way and the child will give it up willingly. A child doesn't understand their right to property, they know they like it and what to keep it for a while...lol Moral code is the determination of right and wrong and it is created by a group of people with the power to do so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You refuse to offer any supporting material for your assertions, so I see no point in further discussions on this subject.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Mon 09/28/09 07:53 PM
Take a toy from an infant and they will cry. They innately understand their right to property. That covers stealing. You are still putting the cart before the horse. I think this is a perfect example of how truly meaningless your arguments are. If you take a toy from an infant you may very well be doing it to protect the child. Yet the child would still cry anyway. Therefore they have absolutely no understanding of anything, much less any moral codes of absolute right or wrong. You're arguments aren't even very well-thought out much less meaningful.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 07:53 PM
Now that analogy is not even slightly close. I can take a toy from a child in a certain way and the child will give it up willingly. A child doesn't understand their right to property, they know they like it and what to keep it for a while...lol Moral code is the determination of right and wrong and it is created by a group of people with the power to do so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You refuse to offer any supporting material for your assertions, so I see no point in further discussions on this subject. lol okay but you did not offer any supporting material for your assertions either so we are even there.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 09/28/09 07:56 PM
Now that analogy is not even slightly close. I can take a toy from a child in a certain way and the child will give it up willingly. A child doesn't understand their right to property, they know they like it and what to keep it for a while...lol Moral code is the determination of right and wrong and it is created by a group of people with the power to do so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You refuse to offer any supporting material for your assertions, so I see no point in further discussions on this subject. lol okay but you did not offer any supporting material for your assertions either so we are even there. I offered logic and analogies. I have complied them into this post for you. Simple analogy: "Right and Wrong" are the ocean, Morality is the boat. No they aren't. Morality is how you navigate between right and wrong and the shades of gray. Imagine a situation wherein you have to either steal or starve. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to starve. Your morality is how you determine which is the right course of action. Morality is a judgment call. How can you make a judgment, if you don't know what you are judging?

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 07:57 PM
Ok, so now we have a baseline. It is immoral to hurt a single child but it is moral to destroy all the children in the world. Interesting choice. No. It's immoral to hurt a child. The other option is that everyone dies, not that I kill them. Doesn't this analogy seem really silly to you? What do you imagine, aliens are going to show up to destroy the world, but won't do it if one lone man commits a barbaric and savage act of lust? But whatever... Well since “doing nothing” would result in both events occurring and there is no fourth alternative given, yes, I believe that hurting one child is morally superior to destroying the entire human race. Okay...do you agree that hurting the child is wrong? You feel it's the less wrong of the two choices, but it's still wrong, correct? Who said hurting a child is immoral? Who said murder is immoral? Who called it murder, child abuse, etc...? Who called it immoral to begin with? Whoever that person is is the determinor of the moral code and the producer of right and wrong.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 07:58 PM
Now that analogy is not even slightly close. I can take a toy from a child in a certain way and the child will give it up willingly. A child doesn't understand their right to property, they know they like it and what to keep it for a while...lol Moral code is the determination of right and wrong and it is created by a group of people with the power to do so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You refuse to offer any supporting material for your assertions, so I see no point in further discussions on this subject. lol okay but you did not offer any supporting material for your assertions either so we are even there. I offered logic and analogies. I have complied them into this post for you. Simple analogy: "Right and Wrong" are the ocean, Morality is the boat. No they aren't. Morality is how you navigate between right and wrong and the shades of gray. Imagine a situation wherein you have to either steal or starve. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to starve. Your morality is how you determine which is the right course of action. Morality is a judgment call. How can you make a judgment, if you don't know what you are judging? And that is suppose to be what?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 09/28/09 07:59 PM Edited by Spidercmb on Mon 09/28/09 08:00 PM
Take a toy from an infant and they will cry. They innately understand their right to property. That covers stealing. You are still putting the cart before the horse. I think this is a perfect example of how truly meaningless your arguments are. If you take a toy from an infant you may very well be doing it to protect the child. Yet the child would still cry anyway. Therefore they have absolutely no understanding of anything, much less any moral codes of absolute right or wrong. You're arguments aren't even very well-thought out much less meaningful. It doesn't matter WHY you take it, it matters that you take it and the child wants it. The child believes taking something it owns is wrong. Proof that even a small child understands property rights. It doesn't matter if they understand moral codes, what matters is that they know it's wrong to take something from someone else. Even kids who take stuff from other kids will cry when something is taken from them. Respectfully, I must say that my arguments are meaningful, I just don't believe you are inclined to agree with me, unless you see an opportunity to twist my statements around to attack Christianity.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 09/28/09 08:01 PM
Who said hurting a child is immoral? Who said murder is immoral? Who called it murder, child abuse, etc...? Who called it immoral to begin with? Whoever that person is is the determinor of the moral code and the producer of right and wrong. God. Glad we can agree that God exists, now we have one less thing to argue about.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 08:02 PM Edited by Dragoness on Mon 09/28/09 08:04 PM
Take a toy from an infant and they will cry. They innately understand their right to property. That covers stealing. You are still putting the cart before the horse. I think this is a perfect example of how truly meaningless your arguments are. If you take a toy from an infant you may very well be doing it to protect the child. Yet the child would still cry anyway. Therefore they have absolutely no understanding of anything, much less any moral codes of absolute right or wrong. You're arguments aren't even very well-thought out much less meaningful. It doesn't matter WHY you take it, it matters that you take it and the child wants it. The child believes taking something it owns is wrong. Proof that even a small child understands property rights. It doesn't matter if they understand moral codes, what matters is that they know it's wrong to take something from someone else. Even kids who take stuff from other kids will cry when something is taken from them. Respectfully, I must say that my arguments are meaningful, I just don't believe you are inclined to agree with me, unless you see an opportunity to twist my statements around to attack Christianity. The child doen't know it is wrong, they like the toy and want to keep it, hell they don't even care if it is their toy or not. They don't even care if it has been payed for yet or not....lol Come on now....

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 08:03 PM
Who said hurting a child is immoral? Who said murder is immoral? Who called it murder, child abuse, etc...? Who called it immoral to begin with? Whoever that person is is the determinor of the moral code and the producer of right and wrong. God. Glad we can agree that God exists, now we have one less thing to argue about. Not even. Who gave it the name? A man or men did and they are the determinor of the moral code and the next result is right or wrong.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Mon 09/28/09 08:09 PM
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You refuse to offer any supporting material for your assertions, so I see no point in further discussions on this subject. Nothing you have offered in the entire course of this thread has been supported by anything. Every one of your arguements has been shown by several people to be grossly flawed. Besides, what do we have here? We have people disagreeing on how to even define morality and what's right or wrong. People can't even agree on how to go about defining it much less moving on to actually working toward building a meaningful system of moral codes. I think your suggest that morals are absolute has been clearly shown to be false. It's just not supported by reality. Sky had already given many examples where laws are different in differents state, and even things like women wearing bikinis are seen as the norm in some places whilst deemed to be totally immoral in other places. Clearly any argument that there is any such thing as absolute morals is obviously false. It's just not even a viable suggestion. And just as I have pointed out, the whole Abrahamic religion thing is utter PROOF that there is no such thing as absolute morals. The Jews, Muslism, Catholics, and Protestants all disagree on what's right and what's wrong. So clearly we can't turn to any of those religions for any answers because they don't even agree with themselves and they were supposedly all started by the same fascist Godhead. Your whole proposal is simply not supported by anything, especially the very religions that would need to support it. They all disagree! The proof is in the pudding! It's basically been PROVEN beyond any shadow of a doubt that no absolute moral conscience exists. For even devout religious people can't agree on precisely what's absolutely right or absolutely wrong. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat or that the Earth is at the center of the universe. There already exists tons of proof that humans do not agree on what's absolutely right or wrong. That's a given. So your arguments are utterly absurd. Truly. You have got to be posting these arguments just for the sake of arguing because you can't be serious. You just like to argue absurd things evidently.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Mon 09/28/09 08:12 PM
The child doen't know it is wrong, they like the toy and want to keep it, hell they don't even care if it is their toy or not. They don't even care if it has been payed for yet or not....lol Come on now.... He just came here to argue absurdities. It has to be the case. No one could be this unrealistic. It's just a game to him evidently. Just argue something that utterly asburd and see how many people will bite.

jasonpfaff Joined Sun 09/27/09 Posts: 152	Mon 09/28/09 08:15 PM
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?

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 08:17 PM
The child doen't know it is wrong, they like the toy and want to keep it, hell they don't even care if it is their toy or not. They don't even care if it has been payed for yet or not....lol Come on now.... He just came here to argue absurdities. It has to be the case. No one could be this unrealistic. It's just a game to him evidently. Just argue something that utterly asburd and see how many people will bite.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 09/28/09 08:18 PM
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? I commented on the OP back a few pages. The subjectivity of morality and right and wrong is a definite.

jasonpfaff Joined Sun 09/27/09 Posts: 152	Mon 09/28/09 08:18 PM 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?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Mon 09/28/09 08:22 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Mon 09/28/09 08:26 PM
Ok, so now we have a baseline. It is immoral to hurt a single child but it is moral to destroy all the children in the world. Interesting choice. No. It's immoral to hurt a child. The other option is that everyone dies, not that I kill them. It seems you have not understood the example. In the example you do not perform any action at all. You simply decide which events will or will not occur. Doesn't this analogy seem really silly to you? But it is you who are insisting on the absolute nature of right and wrong. And in order for it to be absolute, it must necessarily be able to cover all conceivable situations. So I don’t really see the analogy as being any sillier than absolute moralism itself. Well since “doing nothing” would result in both events occurring and there is no fourth alternative given, yes, I believe that hurting one child is morally superior to destroying the entire human race. Okay...do you agree that hurting the child is wrong?Notice that that question implies that any answer would be absolute. So I will answer this way: If there are no other factors whatsoever that would be affected by the action, or lack thereof, then yes, I agree that hurting a child would be wrong. You feel it's the less wrong of the two choices, but it's still wrong, correct? Actually, no. Just as one option is more wrong than the other, one option is more right than the other. That is the one I call “right”. So I guess you could actually say that “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong”).

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 09/28/09 08:26 PM Edited by Spidercmb on Mon 09/28/09 08:27 PM
Ok, so now we have a baseline. It is immoral to hurt a single child but it is moral to destroy all the children in the world. Interesting choice. No. It's immoral to hurt a child. The other option is that everyone dies, not that I kill them. Now it seems you have not understood the example. In the example you do not perform any action at all. You simply decide which events will or will not occur. Doesn't this analogy seem really silly to you? But it is you who are insisting on the absolute nature of right and wrong. And in order for it to be absolute, it must necessarily be able to cover all conceivable situations. So I don’t really see the analogy as being any sillier than absolute moralism itself. Well since “doing nothing” would result in both events occurring and there is no fourth alternative given, yes, I believe that hurting one child is morally superior to destroying the entire human race. Okay...do you agree that hurting the child is wrong? Notice that that question implies that any answer would be absolute. So I will answer this way: If there are no other factors whatsoever that would be affected by the action, or lack thereof, then yes, I agree that hurting a child would be wrong. You feel it's the less wrong of the two choices, but it's still wrong, correct? Actually, no. Just as one option is more wrong than the other, one option is more right than the other. That is the one I call “right”. So I guess you could actually say that “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong”). Bravo my friend. I have never seen such an impressive performance before in my life. Such incredible contortions so that you don't have to say that raping a child is always wrong.