What exactly is right and what is wrong? Does the perception of the mass majority decide what is lawful? What if 51% of people believe that something is one way and the other 49% thats like, totally not okay?
Notice from cmatcmextra:Moving from What Is..?. You are only allowed to post topics in the What Is ..? forum, if you answer the question you are asking in the first post.
Interesting topic...Well, I believe when someone dictates something as being "Wrong", they mean "If this hurts others in a way, it's bad".And when they say "Right", they could be meaning "If this helps, someone/something in a way", it's good.If the majority decides that shooting someone is "Right", that doesn't make it right now does it? Because we KNOW shooting someone will hurt them, possibly KILL them, meaning it'd contridict what I first said.If the majoirt decides it's wrong to shoot someone, well, look at the first thing I said "If it hurts someone, it's bad". Well this is definatly hurting someone, so I think people need to get there brains looked at.Many people have different views on life, someone may say shoplifting to survive, isn't wrong, but others will say it is. Just depends on who you ask.
I've always considered right to be the opposite of left.But then that's just me.I'd agree with KuBi's diagnosis; if it helps someone else, it's good, if it hurts them, it's bad.
I think that right and wrong depends on the person.Every person has their own perception on what is right and what is wrong, based on their religion, beliefs, attitude, and how they were raised. So, a person brought up in a rough neighbourhood will have a completely different perception than someone like a monk.Now, when it comes to laws, what is right and what is wrong is different in every country in my opinion. In depends on what the person in power of the government thinks, and what the majority of the citizens think.In my opinion, what people percieve as being right and wrong is unique to them, and different than what is publicly considered right and wrong.
I think that most people know that such atrocities as what the Holocaust are genuinely, objectively wrong. Christians believe that if objective principles of right and wrong exist, there must be a foundation for them. And the foundation that makes the most sense is the character of a perfect and holy God.The way we live, our behaviour and the way we respond when people treat us, the judgements we make when other people are mistreated these things reveal what we really believe about right and wrong. For example, we believe it was morally wrong for the Nazis to torture and kill six million Jews during World War II. But we not only think it is wrong, we think everyone should agree that it is wrong. This is not to say that something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong. There is a logical possibility that we are mistaken and it is just our cultural conditioning that tells us these things are wrong. This may be a logical possibility, but is it very likely that our deepest intuitions about this matter could be mistaken? That would mean torturing people is not really wrong; we just think it is. But if this basic intuition is wrong, that is, if it is merely the result of cultural conditioning, could it be possible that our other basic beliefs and intuitions, such as our belief in cultural conditioning, are also the result of this same conditioning process? If so, it seems this line of reasoning is self-refuting. It fails its own test.
I love this question. Listen guys. We humans don't have the reasoning ability needed to make a perfect world. You don't kill no matter what. That is why Jews were killed, because Hitler thought he should kill them. He should have taken another look at the Bible! There are always those who would rather have no laws than any at all. We are by nature a sinful creature. We have the naturally sinful nature of lust, hate, anger, and even murder. We can not make judgements on our own.But there is good news guys. And that is we have a God that knows a lot more than we do. He is perfect and therefore knows exactly what our needs are and what we should and shouldn't do. Where do we find this? In the Bible. He gave us a lot of commandments and some rules and guidlines that if everyone followed, we would have a perfect world.If we followed them, we would have a perfect world. There would be no murder, or criminals. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. But we can still follow God's rules to know what is right and wrong. If you follow them, you can't go wrong. This is because they were made to protect us. That is how to tell what if what you are doing is right or wrong. It is like a mirror that mirrors your actions and judges to see if what you are doing is right. Look at the Ten Commandments, and you will know if what you are doing is right or wrong. I promise you it!
I take slight offense to the inclusion of religion in this topic. I felt I asked a simple question about perception, and while I now feel I worded it wrong, I in no way intended for religion to be involved. We should all be mature enough by now to have come to our OWN conclusions about religion, and while I try my damnedest to respect them all, hearing about them agitates the crap outta me. But then I have to admit, some true and valid points were brought up ( if you swim through the preaching ) about my topic. So, Im gonna let it go this time. But next time... *shaking fist* I guess what Im trying to say is, support your ideas with your OWN beliefs, not the beliefs of others. I want to hear from the individual, not... siighh... the majority.
A-Ha! A lovely topic.
I believe right and wrong must first be devided into two subcatagories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic right and wrong apply to absolute, objective right and wrong. For instance, it would be extrinsically wrong to murder. Intrinsic right and wrong applies to conscientious, subjective right and wrong. In these cases, right and wrong conform to your own personal morality, and the deed is wrong in itself.
Take this for instance:
Say I were a starving man with a family to feed, and I spotted a large, successful bakery across the street. I break in during the night, and abscond a few loaves of bread to sustain me and my family. This action would be extrinsically wrong, because stealing is objectively wrong, however, this action is intrisically justified, because I felt it was the right thing to do in my situation.
Extrinsic right and wrong usually apply to law. In America, where drivers stay to the right side of the road as opposed to the left, driving on the left side is extrinsically wrong because it's against the law. But is it intrinsically wrong? Out of context, driving on one side of the street to the other doesn't weigh on my conscience, so no, it is not.
Ideally, both extrinsic and intrinsic right and wrong are the same things. However, this is terribly unlikely ever to happen. Not to say that there haven't been attempts. That's what many modern religions do. Christianity tries to conform its followers to one moral standard, that is, the ones found within the Bible. Though a worthy and noble cause, it is probably a lost one. Not until all people can come to a perfect consensus about extrinsic and intrinsic right and wrong is there any hope to unite intrinsic and extrinsic.
There are also other problems that lead out of uniting intrinsic and extrinsic. This follows from the question, "Do we strive to do what is just, and what is just?" If extrinsic is morality as it applies to objectivity and the law, then this is of great concern to everyone. I won't even presume to be able to define what is just, but for further reading, you might try Plato's The Republic. But for now, the point I want to make is the law may or may not be just. And if it isn't just, and we strive for justice in morality, then the question isn't Can we unite the intrinsic and extrinsic? but rather Should we unite them?
I strongly suggest Plato's The Republic for reading.
...That just went my panties a little.Good show.
|REGISTER||GET FREE HOSTING|