I disagree. I don't care about what is "socially advantageous" and I have not yet accepted a reasonable definition of "God" that makes any sense to me, so I can't really say that It, whatever it is, even exists. If It exists, then what and where is it?

Therefore 'right' and 'wrong' boils down to a very personal choice and opinion.

Spider,

Likewise! We have very different opinions, but I respect both the degree and the kind of examination you have put into many of your beliefs.

During one of your periods of low activity on here, one of your seeming-detractors commented that they missed having you around. They explained that - though they disagreed with you regarding just about everything, you had challenged them to think more, to research their facts, and to examine the basis for their beliefs.

LOL, I am sorry I know this has been called off topic but I cannot help myself.

She is not suppose to "literally" enjoy it, just fake it....lol

The same for any being in a subordinate (if this is the right word) situation. Play dead is another example.

As for the whole right and wrong thing. Right and wrong is established in societies by mutual agreement on morals. Some use the bible to create morals others use the koran or another holy book, some use mutual agreements, some use power and force but it still all comes down to right and wrong are determined by who thinks it is right and wrong.

then



Seriously! This thread seems to have been fueled by 'everybody arguing with Spider', but really there is plenty of unexamined areas of disagreement between the other participants, to keep it going.



I see four kinds of morality that intermingle: genetically influenced, culturally influenced as supposedly 'for its own sake', culturally/interpersonally derived as 'in ones own best interest', and a difficult to articulate abstract form related to embracing a system of symmetry, balance, and consistency. Oh, and there is 'morality that is advocated/promoted as a means of controlling others', but that falls under 2 and 3, which are admittedly very similar themselves.

Those who are mired in a very narrow interpretation of 'personal' morality are likely to misunderstand the 4th as being related to "a person imposing an idea of symmetry or balance on the world" - this also happens, but has nothing to do with it - I'm not talking about symmetric or balanced systems of morality, nor morality that based on expecting symmetry or balance in the world where none exists (without human intervention). I'm suggesting that there may be a connection between 'honesty' itself, the beauty and utility of math, and the beauty of music & other arts.

That’s one way of categorizing different influences. I take a slightly different approach.

All the definitions of “moral” that I know of are stated in terms of “right conduct”.

I think any consideration of “right conduct” is based on the purposes of whomever will be manifesting the conduct and determined by that person’s estimation of how well or poorly the conduct will further those purposes.

That’s basically the whole foundation for my stance on “right and wrong”.

The different “influences” you speak of are, to me, the different purposes that are relevant to the situation. And in combination, they form the aggregate of all the purposes considered in making the determination. But there is almost never any situation wherein there is only a single purpose that has any relevance to the situation.

And that I why I believe the only categorical difference between the influences you mentioned, is the one where morality is forced on another. In that case the morality is being determined by another, not oneself. IN other words, the morality is that of the “forcer” not the “forcee”.

from the second post this thread has been off topic. the issue raised by the op is "right and wrong" and not morality or ethics. if right and wrong depends on each person's moral and ethical standard then there is no such thing as right and wrong. because no two people can agree on what is always right and what is always wrong societies have laws which now puts it in black and white what is legally right and legally wrong.

jr wrote...



What would be the difference between right and wrong in a moral sense, and morality itself. People sometimes tend to make distinctions where none exist in order to justify their own beliefs in a matter.

This entire topic has been well-covered long ago by Hume's guillotine. The questions raised by myself that would have directly addressed the underlying issue at hand with morality have went unanswered. Therefore, I saw no reason to continue. Add to that the blatant ad hominem style of argument that is so often resorted to when one has no reasonable means or counter-argument for a tough logical refutation of something that they have posted...

the rub is that the op never mentioned morality as it concerns rigth/wrong. he suggested that we all see right/wrong differently depending on perspective. morals are but one perspective.



again, the subject of the thread is not morality. perhaps you might start your own thread on morality.



and yet, here you are. curious if you've actually found a thread on an internet forum that is not rampant with "blatant ad hominem style of argument." it is a dating site you know?

Exactly.

In a very real sense I'm in agreement with Spider on at least one point: If there is no God, then any sense of absolute right or wrong is a meaningless concept.

Spider was attempting to argue that humans clearly have an absolute sense of right and wrong therefore there must be a God, he argues.

I don't see this as being 'off track' from the orginal OP because in a way Spider is right. If there is no God then it's utterly meaningless to even speak about any meaningful sense of right and wrong outside of mere opinions.

So then the conversations began to adress this concept of absolute right and wrong. Spider felt that it's obvious the humans all ultiamtely agree on what's absolutely right and wrong on the most fundamental level.

Many people argued (including myself) that just the opposite appears to be obvious. Most people do not agree on concepts of absolute right and wrong.

So in a very real sense I'm in agreement with Spider in one way. Without a God who decides? The whole topic reduces to nothing more than mere opinions.

I'm in disagreement with Spider on the idea that it's obvious that humans in general have an absolute sense of right and wrong. I feel that just the opposite is far more obvious.

So I don't see it being off topic at all.

All Spider was truly saying is that if there is no God, any discussion of right or wrong is meaningless. Just put it to a vote, or appoint someone as dictator and you're done. There's nothing to discuss because if there is no God the actual concept of any absolute right and wrong doesn't even exist!

I do agree with that.

jr...



The rub is that one cannot talk about right and wrong in a moral sense without invoking morality and the sense of ought. If the focus were to be on societal laws, then ethics is invoked.

The OP and the later comments from the author were directly addressed by me, and the OP himself thanked me. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

You never answered the question.



Talking about right and wrong in a moral sense without necessarily invoking morality is like talking about the mechanics of flying without invoking aerodynamics. It is impossible. Just as what we know about aerodynamics constitute the mechanics of flying, and will determine the design of an airplane, so does what one believes to be right and wrong constitute the personal sense of ought, and later determine their personal moral choices.



The circumstances changed.

What is the difference between 'right and wrong' concepts and morality? I guess I don't understand the question.

Spider gave his feelings on this as follows:

"Right and Wrong" are absolutes.

Morality is how well an individual adheres to those absolutes.

Putting this in the context of laws, the laws would be the definition of "Right and Wrong". A person's morality would then be how well they obey the laws.

Using this definition then it does make sense to speak about "Right and Wrong" without bringing in the concept of morality.

Right and Wrong would be addressing the concept of the absolute laws.

Morality would be addressing how well each person adheres to the laws.

However, that definition only holds when "Right and Wrong" is taken to be an absolute (as it can be in the case of written laws).

But when each person is deciding for themsleves what they personally feel is "Right or Wrong", then morality and "Right and Wrong" become one in the same thing.

So for an absolutist there is a huge difference between morality and right and wrong.

But for a relativist there's no difference between the two at all.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

morality is only one context when discussing right/wrong. this is the point i'm trying to make. we each decide r/w every day about different aspects of life. before i retired as an executive jet captain, if you were my copilot, there is a right way to fly the airplane, my way lol, and a wrong way. obviously there are several ways to fly any airplane that will get the job done equally as well but if crews are going to be standardized with everybody on the same page when an emergeny arrises then a set of "right" procedures to follow need to be decided upon before flight. we call them "standard operating procedures". many industries have them and you might name them "right operating procedures. we the people wrote an SOP for our government. we call it the constitution. we told the government who will make laws for example. now when asked who can make laws there's only one right answer, congress. a dead wrong answer would be the president and yet a great many americans think otherwise.

JR wrote:






Mingle2, despite some hypocritical exceptions, is generally much better than most.