Can there be a definite line between right and wrong?

[z3hr]

I was thinking about morals the other day and I came up with a strange conclusion. Assuming that right and wrong to exist (opinions aside), if every action done by man must fall under the category of right or the category of wrong, (every motivation, every cell movement, every second of every day) then how could anything be right? Every motivation for every action by every human being is for the benefit of themselves; whether it be for the "heaven" they might get to, or the "respect" they might get, or even the simplistic "good feeling" you get from doing so called "good deeds". Assuming that selfishness is wrong, I honestly could not think of anything good that anyone can possibly do.

In discussion with one of my friends on this subject, I asked him to state a "good" act that someone can commit. He gave examples like martyrdom, giving away money anonymously, giving up opportunity so that others may have it etc.... However, if the motivation of these acts were judged as right and wrong, all of them would be wrong. This led me to the conclusion that if any "good" does exist in the universe, there needs to be some form of "gray area".

Any opinions/agreements/disagreements? I am not a philosopher or anything so feel free to correct me or point out similar philosophical points of view.

[Evo]

Many people do selfless acts that give them no pleasure, but only do it because they feel it is the "right" thing to do. I found some money on the floor recently, and although I wanted to keep it, and no one would have found out, I thought about the person that lost it and turned it in to the security guard. I got no benefit from it, never will, I wanted to keep it, so feel bad that I didn't, not to mention, the person will probably never notice they lost it or think to check with security, so it will probably end up in the security guard's pocket, which makes me feel even worse.

[Jarle]

Right and wrong are human concepts, and it is meaningless to believe that acts in themselves have a definite ethical value independent of the opinion human beings. We can, however, create ethical theories - and systemize actions into categories of right and wrong. The bottom line is thought that the ethical value of an act is relative to each person.

[whs]

I found some money on the floor recently, and although I wanted to keep it, and no one would have found out, I thought about the person that lost it and turned it in to the security guard.

Cha-ching for the security guard, even if that person came back looking for the loot.

[Pythagorean]

Many people do selfless acts that give them no pleasure, but only do it because they feel it is the "right" thing to do. I found some money on the floor recently, and although I wanted to keep it, and no one would have found out, I thought about the person that lost it and turned it in to the security guard. I got no benefit from it, never will, I wanted to keep it, so feel bad that I didn't, not to mention, the person will probably never notice they lost it or think to check with security, so it will probably end up in the security guard's pocket, which makes me feel even worse.

But would you have been able to stand keeping it as you were so compelled not to? How probable is it that your brain made a prediction based on self-interest despite your conscious (no, not conscience) being unaware of that advantage?

[Borg]

I was thinking about morals the other day and I came up with a strange conclusion. Assuming that right and wrong to exist (opinions aside), if every action done by man must fall under the category of right or the category of wrong, (every motivation, every cell movement, every second of every day) then how could anything be right? Every motivation for every action by every human being is for the benefit of themselves; whether it be for the "heaven" they might get to, or the "respect" they might get, or even the simplistic "good feeling" you get from doing so called "good deeds". Assuming that selfishness is wrong, I honestly could not think of anything good that anyone can possibly do.

In discussion with one of my friends on this subject, I asked him to state a "good" act that someone can commit. He gave examples like martyrdom, giving away money anonymously, giving up opportunity so that others may have it etc.... However, if the motivation of these acts were judged as right and wrong, all of them would be wrong. This led me to the conclusion that if any "good" does exist in the universe, there needs to be some form of "gray area".

Any opinions/agreements/disagreements? I am not a philosopher or anything so feel free to correct me or point out similar philosophical points of view.

Just because a person may be ultimately motived by their desire to feel good about something, doesn't mean that they are being selfish. Selfishness is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others. Your friend's examples are good examples of placing needs and desires below the needs and desires of others. I.E. the desire to keep your money, life, etc. Just because you feel good about giving away money, it doesn't mean that the other person has been treated wrongly or that you have commited a selfish act.

[z3hr]

But would you have been able to stand keeping it as you were so compelled not to? How probable is it that your brain made a prediction based on self-interest despite your conscious (no, not conscience) being unaware of that advantage?

Exactly

[z3hr]

Just because a person may be ultimately motived by their desire to feel good about something, doesn't mean that they are being selfish. Selfishness is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others. Your friend's examples are good examples of placing needs and desires below the needs and desires of others. I.E. the desire to keep your money, life, etc. Just because you feel good about giving away money, it doesn't mean that the other person has been treated wrongly or that you have commited a selfish act.

Good point. I guess one could state that EVERYONE has selfish motives, but it is how you go about these motives that defines what your right and wrong are.

[WhoWee]

Good point. I guess one could state that EVERYONE has selfish motives, but it is how you go about these motives that defines what your right and wrong are.

I could be argued that someone who straps a bomb to their body and runs into a crowd to detonate the explosives thinks their selfish motives are "right" - most people would disagree (I hope).

[Gear300]

right | wrong

[WhoWee]

right | wrong

Is it proper for "right" to be displayed on the left?

[Evo]

But would you have been able to stand keeping it as you were so compelled not to? How probable is it that your brain made a prediction based on self-interest despite your conscious (no, not conscience) being unaware of that advantage?It was a dollar bill. I could have easily pocketed it and never thought about it again. It's wasn't enough for anyone to concern themselves with. It's just the way I am, I will often do selfless acts that give me no pleasure nor will they be recoginzed or ackowledged. I just do what I feel is the right thing, even if it isn't what I want to do and I it doesn't make me feel good. Just a senseless, sellfless act.

[curiousphoton]

It was a dollar bill.

The security guard must have thought you were smoking something.

Think about this:

Event A: The time it took to locate a security guard, explain to him why you were giving him a dollar, and convince him that you weren't crazy.

Event B: Using that same amount of time to write someone in need a nice note, lifting their spirits.

Which does more good? Using logic in life results in doing more good.

[vectorcube]

Many people do selfless acts that give them no pleasure, but only do it because they feel it is the "right" thing to do. I found some money on the floor recently, and although I wanted to keep it, and no one would have found out, I thought about the person that lost it and turned it in to the security guard. I got no benefit from it, never will, I wanted to keep it, so feel bad that I didn't, not to mention, the person will probably never notice they lost it or think to check with security, so it will probably end up in the security guard's pocket, which makes me feel even worse.



So your point being that it makes you feel good when you do some act. I would hate to be around you if you are in a bad mood.
Don` t you think it would be nice to do something because it is good, and not because of how you feel?

[Pythagorean]

It was a dollar bill. I could have easily pocketed it and never thought about it again. It's wasn't enough for anyone to concern themselves with. It's just the way I am, I will often do selfless acts that give me no pleasure nor will they be recoginzed or ackowledged. I just do what I feel is the right thing, even if it isn't what I want to do and I it doesn't make me feel good. Just a senseless, sellfless act.

But the amount doesn't seem to be important to the idea of altruism from the evolutionary standpoint. That is, "it's the principle that matters". To me, it only says that you're socially intelligent.

As a caveat though, I have a world-view that excludes the concept of right and wrong as objective concepts that existed before man. In an evolved society, right and wrong are developed as part of a dynamic consensus reality in this world-view.

As is such, I don't analyze or trust people's claims to motive, I only see the actions. I think that by and large, people don't really know why they do a lot of things, they just have a 'feeling' that pushes them one way or another and then they justify it with morality often after-the-fact.

[vectorcube]

But the amount doesn't seem to be important to the idea of altruism from the evolutionary standpoint. That is, "it's the principle that matters". To me, it only says that you're socially intelligent.

As a caveat though, I have a world-view that excludes the concept of right and wrong as objective concepts that existed before man. In an evolved society, right and wrong are developed as part of a dynamic consensus reality in this world-view.

As is such, I don't analyze or trust people's claims to motive, I only see the actions. I think that by and large, people don't really know why they do a lot of things, they just have a 'feeling' that pushes them one way or another and then they justify it with morality often after-the-fact.


So imagine you are in front of a judge, and say " So what is the big deal with killing people? I was feeling like it at the time of day". The judge would say " No, killing people is ****ing wrong."


Look at the statement:

Killing people is wrong. v.s The phone in on top of the table.

Notice something interesting?

They are both descriptive statements about something.

[Pythagorean]

So imagine you are in front of a judge, and say " So what is the big deal with killing people? I was feeling like it at the time of day". The judge would say " No, killing people is ****ing wrong."


Look at the statement:

Killing people is wrong. v.s The phone in on top of the table.

Notice something interesting?

They are both descriptive statements about something.

This is the consensus reality I was talking about, and expressed emotionally. Judges especially represent the very substance of this consensus reality, as it is written in the letters of man, by the hand of man, to be followed by man. I conform to the consensus reality, myself, but I do not confuse it with statements like 'the phone is on top of the table'.

[vectorcube]

This is the consensus reality I was talking about, and expressed emotionally. Judges especially represent the very substance of this consensus reality, as it is written in the letters of man, by the hand of man, to be followed by man. I conform to the consensus reality, myself, but I do not confuse it with statements like 'the phone is on top of the table'.


Well, i guess, you don` t get it.

The phone on the table, and killing is wrong has the same form as a subject predicate proposition, or Px.

Accordingly, Px is only meaningful if x has a referent, or possibly the most intuitive way of interpreting the proposition.

In my opnion, it is a bad move to say " i don ` t kill people, because no one else do".
It is best to say " Killing people is wrong, then that is why i don` t kill people".

Similarly, it is bad to jump off a building because everyone else think it is a good idea.
One way out is to say everyone else is an idiot, and jumping off a building is bad.

The word "good" would refer to something that are truely good.



See the difference? Please, Get it!:cry:

[JoeDawg]

Look at the statement:

Killing people is wrong. v.s The phone in on top of the table.

Notice something interesting?

They are both descriptive statements about something.

Actually I think the first one is more proscriptive. It equates to: you shouldn't kill people.
Wrong means: you shouldn't do this.
You've just phrased it in a way that makes it seem descriptive. But 'Wrong' is a value judgement, not a description. You're not describing something about 'killing people', you are asserting something about 'killing people'.

A purely descriptive statement would be: He killed 5 people and went to jail for life.
But that says nothing about whether what he did was right or wrong.

[vectorcube]

Actually I think the first one is more proscriptive. It equates to: you shouldn't kill people.
Wrong means: you shouldn't do this.
You've just phrased it in a way that makes it seem descriptive. But 'Wrong' is a value judgement, not a description. You're not describing something about 'killing people', you are asserting something about 'killing people'.

A purely descriptive statement would be: He killed 5 people and went to jail for life.
But that says nothing about whether what he did was right or wrong.


Actually, no. Killing people is wrong is very much like 5 is prime, or Px.

To say wrong is a more like judgment is the same as saying wrong is normative. What we ough to do under certain situations. Great, but it does not give us any ground for telling some people that they are really, really wrong.

[JoeDawg]

Great, but it does not give us any ground for telling some people that they are really, really wrong.

"Killing people is wrong" IS a pretty useless statement. At least in terms of ethics.

When you say 'killing people is wrong', you're simply disapproving of it. If you want to get into a serious discussion about ethics, you then have to say why you think it is wrong. That is, you have to justify your assertion with examples and/or some logic.

And not everyone would agree with 'killing people is wrong'. So you have to be prepared to deal with counter examples. Like for instance, 'killing people in times of war', and 'killing people in self defense'. You also have to be prepared to define what a person is, what constitutes war, and threats to your person. Some people will say a baby before it is born is not a person, some will say that any creature above a certain complexity, chimps and dolphins for instance, should be treated as people. And some people will say that merely have certain weapons(WMDs anyone?) is a threat, or a declaration of war.

[vectorcube]

"Killing people is wrong" IS a pretty useless statement. At least in terms of ethics.

When you say 'killing people is wrong', you're simply disapproving of it..

No, not at all. I mean killing people is wrong. :shy:


And not everyone would agree with 'killing people is wrong'. So you have to be prepared to deal with counter examples. Like for instance, 'killing people in times of war', and 'killing people in self defense'. You also have to be prepared to define what a person is, what constitutes war, and threats to your person. Some people will say a baby before it is born is not a person, some will say that any creature above a certain complexity, chimps and dolphins for instance, should be treated as people. And some people will say that merely have certain weapons(WMDs anyone?) is a threat, or a declaration of war.

It is great, but killing people is still wrong, and you are really not being focus at all.

[DaveC426913]

Many people do selfless acts that give them no pleasure, but only do it because they feel it is the "right" thing to do. I found some money on the floor recently, and although I wanted to keep it, and no one would have found out, I thought about the person that lost it and turned it in to the security guard. I got no benefit from it, never will, I wanted to keep it, so feel bad that I didn't, not to mention, the person will probably never notice they lost it or think to check with security, so it will probably end up in the security guard's pocket, which makes me feel even worse.
BTW, next time that happens, I'd do the following: hang on to the money yourself and simply give the security guard your contact information. I would not tell the security guard exactly how much money it was.

[Pythagorean]

Well, i guess, you don` t get it.

The phone on the table, and killing is wrong has the same form as a subject predicate proposition, or Px.

Accordingly, Px is only meaningful if x has a referent, or possibly the most intuitive way of interpreting the proposition.

In my opnion, it is a bad move to say " i don ` t kill people, because no one else do".
It is best to say " Killing people is wrong, then that is why i don` t kill people".

Similarly, it is bad to jump off a building because everyone else think it is a good idea.
One way out is to say everyone else is an idiot, and jumping off a building is bad.

The word "good" would refer to something that are truely good.



See the difference? Please, Get it!:cry:

Yes, I get it. I got it before you explained it. It's a common argument in ethics (though you've shaped it very badly, I must say). I just don't happen to agree with the argument.

[Pattonias]

Actually, no. Killing people is wrong is very much like 5 is prime, or Px.

To say wrong is a more like judgment is the same as saying wrong is normative. What we ough to do under certain situations. Great, but it does not give us any ground for telling some people that they are really, really wrong.

I don't think you can ever get around the moral right being relative to each individual.

Killing people is wrong in theory, but it depends on the point of view.

What if someone was harming another person and your only recourse was to kill the attacker. Some might consider this wrong on principle, but others would not.

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

I think that generally killing is undesirable. You can seen many instances throughout history where groups of people apparently overcame the stigma and killed millions of people. These killers would have argued they were in the right.

[DaveC426913]

Just because a person may be ultimately motived by their desire to feel good about something, doesn't mean that they are being selfish. Selfishness is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.Hey I like this.

I'm going to use this the next time some d*mn fool claims that "there is no such thing as a selfless act". I've always disliked that claim.

[Borg]

Hey I like this.

I'm going to use this the next time some d*mn fool claims that "there is no such thing as a selfless act". I've always disliked that claim.

Glad to be of service - in a strictly selfish way of course. :tongue2:

[DaveC426913]

Actually, no. Killing people is wrong is very much like 5 is prime, or Px. It wasn't always wrong. When survival was tribe-based, there were definitely friends and enemies. I cannot swallow the idea that - in a time when there were no alternativees like there are today - killing an enemy that's jeopardizing your tribe's survival was wrong.

[Pattonias]

It wasn't always wrong. When survival was tribe-based, there were definitely friends and enemies. I cannot swallow the idea that - in a time when there were no alternativees like there are today - killing an enemy that's jeopardizing your tribe's survival was wrong.

Exactly

You can't compare the moral right/wrong

to

2+2=4 versus 2+2=5

Moral dilemmas have a infinite number of variable.

[Evo]

So your point being that it makes you feel good when you do some act. No. I feel bad. Read my post.

I would hate to be around you if you are in a bad mood.
Don` t you think it would be nice to do something because it is good, and not because of how you feel?Read my post, I did it because I think it's right, but made me feel bad.

I don't think you read my post, because your reply had nothing to do with it.

But maybe English isn't your first language, so you can't comprehend. Let me know if I need to state what I said in an easier to understand way.

[DaveC426913]

I don't think you can ever get around the moral right being relative to each individual.

Killing people is wrong in theory, but it depends on the point of view.

What if someone was harming another person and your only recourse was to kill the attacker. Some might consider this wrong on principle, but others would not.

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

I think that generally killing is undesirable. You can seen many instances throughout history where groups of people apparently overcame the stigma and killed millions of people. These killers would have argued they were in the right.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's relative to the individual. I'd say it's relative to the society. Right and wrong are a consensus of the society as a whole.

[vectorcube]

Yes, I get it. I got it before you explained it. It's a common argument in ethics (though you've shaped it very badly, I must say). I just don't happen to agree with the argument.



As long as i am right...

[vectorcube]

I don't think you can ever get around the moral right being relative to each individual.

Killing people is wrong in theory, but it depends on the point of view.

What if someone was harming another person and your only recourse was to kill the attacker. Some might consider this wrong on principle, but others would not.

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

I think that generally killing is undesirable. You can seen many instances throughout history where groups of people apparently overcame the stigma and killed millions of people. These killers would have argued they were in the right.

Well, you can think about an act that is right becaue everyone else does, or there are some acts that is intrinsically right, and you do what is intrinsically right. In anycase.

[vectorcube]

It wasn't always wrong. When survival was tribe-based, there were definitely friends and enemies. I cannot swallow the idea that - in a time when there were no alternativees like there are today - killing an enemy that's jeopardizing your tribe's survival was wrong.



If you find it hard to understand, then instead of "killing people". Try "killing babies".

[vectorcube]

No. I feel bad. Read my post.

Read my post, I did it because I think it's right, but made me feel bad.

I don't think you read my post, because your reply had nothing to do with it.

But maybe English isn't your first language, so you can't comprehend. Let me know if I need to state what I said in an easier to understand way.


honey, I honestly don` t know what is so complicated about your view at all. Your view is rather simple if anything. You don` t think so? I am pretty sure it is rather simple. It is really about how an agent feels about an certain act, and if this agent feels good about it, then this agent act upon it. Am i right?


But maybe English isn't your first language, so you can't comprehend. Let me know if I need to state what I said in an easier to understand way.

Hmm... I am sure it is really complicated and profound.

[vectorcube]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's relative to the individual. I'd say it's relative to the society. Right and wrong are a consensus of the society as a whole.


..But it is wrong, and I don` t think you really want morality to be just a consensus. If everyone thinks that jumping off a building is a good idea, then jumping off a building is a good idea by common consensus. Intuitively, there is some wrong about it. Why? Because jumping off a building is rather stupid, and it is a bad idea.

[Pythagorean]

If you find it hard to understand, then instead of "killing people". Try "killing babies".

I respect a woman's right to choose.

[Pythagorean]

..But it is wrong, and I don` t think you really want morality to be just a consensus. If everyone thinks that jumping off a building is a good idea, then jumping off a building is a good idea by common consensus. Intuitively, there is some wrong about it. Why? Because jumping off a building is rather stupid, and it is a bad idea.

I don't want morality to be a consensus, but it is... I have to behave as society demands or I go to jail. In the case of killing people, this is fine, I don't need to kill people, but I shouldn't have to follow all of societies rules just because I'm a minority (not ethnically, but politically). I don't even like the idea of democracy because of this. Democracy isn't freedom. It's freedom for the majority.

[vectorcube]

I respect a woman's right to choose.


And i respect the right of the baby to not get murder.

[Office_Shredder]

Imagine you're the president of the US (or whatever suitable country you pick). You get a phone call that a mad scientist has injected a baby with a deadly disease that, once it incubates in the baby, will spread and kill everyone in the world, with the sole exception of the baby. They want your authorization to kill this baby.

Do you say no?

Obviously this is a contrived example, but picking 'baby killing' as proof that value statements are objective is fairly contrived in and of itself

[vectorcube]

I don't want morality to be a consensus, but it is... I have to behave as society demands or I go to jail. In the case of killing people, this is fine, I don't need to kill people, but I shouldn't have to follow all of societies rules just because I'm a minority (not ethnically, but politically). I don't even like the idea of democracy because of this. Democracy isn't freedom. It's freedom for the majority.

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

Tomorrow, if everyone around in the country started to killing jews & asians. I would say "it is wrong", and you want to say "it is wrong" as well. You want to say certain act is wrong not because everyone else thinks it is wrong, but because the act of kill innocent jews& asians is intrinsically wrong.

[Pythagorean]

Imagine you're the president of the US (or whatever suitable country you pick). You get a phone call that a mad scientist has injected a baby with a deadly disease that, once it incubates in the baby, will spread and kill everyone in the world, with the sole exception of the baby. They want your authorization to kill this baby.

Do you say no?

Obviously this is a contrived example, but picking 'baby killing' as proof that value statements are objective is fairly contrived in and of itself

yup, bye-bye baby, unless its mine of course, then you have to kill me to get to it unless i have a moment of lucidity or something

[seycyrus]

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

You are trying to argue absolute right/wrong which is absolutely irrelevant to the real world.

It is necessary to realize that some things are more wrong than others.

[Pattonias]

How do you define right?

Is it what makes you feel good on the inside?
Is it the best decision based on the given information?
Is it what society deems to be the right thing to do?
Is it an action performed with benevolent intent?

If you try to claim that any one or all of these things truly define right; everyone here will be able to list dozens of examples that will show that the definition is flawed. It must be a combination of the above definitions that each one of us uses to decide what is right when we make our own decisions.

Doing the truly right thing should come with a knowledge and acceptance of the consequences as you forsee them. The right thing should also be an element of the moment. You should not look back at something and behave as if the individual had the forsight to predict all possible outcomes for the decision that he or she felt was the right one.

[Pythagorean]

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

Tomorrow, if everyone around in the country started to killing jews & asians. I would say "it is wrong", and you want to say "it is wrong" as well. You want to say certain act is wrong not because everyone else thinks it is wrong, but because the act of kill innocent jews& asians is intrinsically wrong.

That is incorrect. I would want to say it's wrong because I feel that it's wrong. I feel very strongly that it's wrong. It's obvious you feel very strongly about it too. The difference is that I know feeling from facts.

What's wrong with subjective morality anyway? Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean it should be trivialized. Our feelings about killing are still important, despite being feelings.

I feel the same way about a meaning of life. There is no one meaning of life; it's subjective. That doesn't make it meaningless. It's not somehow "lesser" than if meaning were objective.

[vectorcube]

That is incorrect. I would want to say it's wrong because I feel that it's wrong. I feel very strongly that it's wrong. It's obvious you feel very strongly about it too. The difference is that I know feeling from facts.

What's wrong with subjective morality anyway? Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean it should be trivialized. Our feelings about killing are still important, despite being feelings.

I feel the same way about a meaning of life. There is no one meaning of life; it's subjective. That doesn't make it meaningless. It's not somehow "lesser" than if meaning were objective.



Look, if tomorrow, everyone started to kill asians and jews. Let say you go up to these people. You can say one of the following two things:

1. Your people should not kill asians& jews, because it is morally wrong.

or

2. Your people should stop killing the jews&asians, because i don` t feel good about killing the jews&asians.


It is not going to convince anyone if you are going to use option 2.

[Pythagorean]

Look, if tomorrow, everyone started to kill asians and jews. Let say you go up to these people. You can say one of the following two things:

1. Your people should not kill asians& jews, because it is morally wrong.

or

2. Your people should stop killing the jews&asians, because i don` t feel good about killing the jews&asians.


It is not going to convince anyone if you are going to use option 2.

that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. We're not discussing how to convince genocidal killers to stop killing.

Even if we were, it's not like option 1 is going to work any better than option 2. More likely, you'll have to imprison or kill them to get them to stop.

[WhoWee]

What if you kill someone who is trying to kill you. Should you feel guilty?

Or, what if someone is trying to kill you and you try to kill him instead, but he still kills you - should he feel good because you didn't kill him and bad because he killed you and how would you feel?:rolleyes:

[vectorcube]

that's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So i guess you don` t know the traditional argument for moral realism, do you?
..

Because there is no way you would say this if you really know.

[Office_Shredder]

You mean moral relativism?

Your post was asking 'which of these sounds like a more convincing argument to stop a genocidal dictator', not 'which of these is more philosophically sound'. It's essentially a strawman argument

[vectorcube]

You mean moral relativism?

Your post was asking 'which of these sounds like a more convincing argument to stop a genocidal dictator', not 'which of these is more philosophically sound'. It's essentially a strawman argument

No. It is two alternative reasons. How is this moral relativism, anyway?

[vectorcube]

Well, let get these technical stuff out of the way:

Ok, moral realism is the ontological claim that there are "moral facts" that makes moral proposition true.

This proposition could be a mental representation, intention etc. For our purpose, they are all truthbearers.

To say that a proposition "P is true", is to say P is a truthbearer, and "is true" is known as a truth predicate.

According to our best theory for the assignment of truth predicated is Russell ` s explication between propositions and facts. To say that P is true is to say there exist a fact that makes P true. For our case, the "Moral facts" is what makes a moral proposition true.

Now, this technical use of "facts", "truth predicate" and propositions has a long history, and generally accepted by philosophers. The pros of this approach is the objectivity of what we mean by a proposition, namely, it `s corresponding fact. So to say that P is a proposition, or truthbearers of some sort, is to commit to the existence of a fact F, where "facts" are supposed to have some sort of mind-independent existence.

Russell theory of logical atomism is based an the relation between truthbearers, and the follow ontological claims: 1. there exist facts, 2. there exist relations between facts. With 1&2 postulated, according to russell, A proposition P that is true is suppose to refer to 1, or 2. The pros of this approach is the objectivity of what we mean by a proposition.
The con is the ontological commitment onces we accept this view about propositions, and truthbearer.



....

..
I wonder how many understand?

In case no one understand:http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/Papers/Moral%20Realism.pdf

[Pythagorean]

So i guess you don` t know the traditional argument for moral realism, do you?
..

Because there is no way you would say this if you really know.

Now you're deriving authority from my ignorance. I've pretty much accepted that wherever you have your head stuck, you're not planning on pulling it out anytime soon, so enjoy!

[vectorcube]

Now you're deriving authority from my ignorance. I've pretty much accepted that wherever you have your head stuck, you're not planning on pulling it out anytime soon, so enjoy!

if you want to read something technical then post 52 might be your cup of tea.


Trust me, saying that "it is irrelevent" is not a good answer. In fact, it is central to why people go for moral realism. Realism allow you to make claims that would otherwise be subjective to individual specker. what you need to know is that with moral realism, you can make claims like "killing is wrong". Is this authority? yes! I am telling you this is the view, and you can go fact check it by read a book, journal or taking a course.

[Pattonias]

I think the problem is that if we all stand here and say that "this action is morally wrong," we will always be able to find at least one person who wholeheartedly disagrees.

Would that principle (if it could be tested) prove that there can be no definite line between right and wrong?

[vectorcube]

I think the problem is that if we all stand here and say that "this action is morally wrong," we will always be able to find at least one person who wholeheartedly disagrees.

Doesn't that fact prove that there can be no definite line between right and wrong.

No.

Take the case of John, John might not know how to prove fermat` s theorm, and he might reasonably think fermat` s theorm is falses. John would be holding a false belief, because fermat` s theorm is actually true.

[Pattonias]

No.

Take the case of John, John might not know how to prove fermat` s theorm, and he might reasonably think fermat` s theorm is falses. John would be holding a false belief, because fermat` s theorm is actually true.

We are still comparing two different things. The moral right to the scientific/mathematical right.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of the moral right, but I will do so here.

Perhaps it should be said that there can be a clear line scienfically.
Ex. A Scientific Law

There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?

[vectorcube]

We are still comparing two different things. The moral right to the scientific/mathematical right.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of the moral right, but I will do so here.

Perhaps it should be said that there can be a clear line scienfically.
Ex. A Scientific Law

There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?

I am telling you what moral realism implies. I am not telling you two difference things, or if it is scientifically right or not.

I say it again. I moral fact is what assigns the truth predicate to a moral proposition.


There can not always exist a clear line between right and wrong morally.
Ex. Is killing a convicted murderer right or wrong?


Like i said before. The fact that john does not know a fact does not imply this fact do not exist.He might just be too stupid.

[seycyrus]

...
I wonder how many understand?....


Buddy, all you do is claim that everyone who disagrees with you, doesn't understand.

What are you really proposing anyway besides throwing down some irrelevant-to-the-real-world philosophy?

Show me how your philosophy provides the correct solution to a real world dilemma.

[Enidox]

Oh this is a "fun" one.

See, I'm a diagnosed Sociopath, as well as having Schizophrenia (fun times, I know). Now I'm not just saying/posting this to seem "dark and cool" or whatever else you might throw up as a reason for my being untruthful on the matter, but for me "right" and "wrong" are things that, while I usually understand why it is seen that way by modern society, I cannot see the logical reasoning for many actions being condemned and others praised. Tattoos and piercings are a great example.

Historically, a "gauged" ear piercing meant you were a captured slave-as they would put a chain through everybody's new ear holes-and tattoos were simply a way of identifying you as someone or something.

Now, in modern western society a tattooed or pierced individual (not counting female lobe piercings) is seen as a social deviant and for some reason a terrible stigma is attached to those simply trying to express themselves through artwork. I personally have a good number of tattoos (my most seen one being DILLIGAF across my fingers) and piercings, but have yet to understand why I am looked at like some kind of second class citizen because I choose to tell my life's story with ink and metal.

One that gets a lot of questions is the rosary made of a thorned vine I have going from each elbow down to my hands and a small rose is blooming on different points of the thorned vine. I explain it means several things, one is that religion has become a thorn in our sides and is now a perverted form of what it once was, the other is that every rose symbolizes someone important to me that has died. My most commented on one (as well as my first) is the one across my throat-goes right around the bottom near my collar bone-that reads "LOVELESS" as though it was carved in. I got this one because most of the days I wake up I feel like throwing myself off of a bridge and have never really known what love feels like and for that matter I probably never will. One that I'm sure get's stared at, but no one ever asks about is on the back of my neck, a simple bit of knot art done in Aleister Crowley's now infamous geometric symbol-I apologize for not being able to remember the name of it at the moment. I have that one coloured in my family's tartan and it is actually my most expensive one, not to mention it took nearly a year to finish and actually hurt worse than the one on my throat. Go figure on that one.

So no, I don't feel you can ever draw a definite line between "right" and "wrong" as these are simply perceptions that change over time and are different depending on what part of the world your in. I feel there will be lines drawn in the proverbeal moral sand in roughly the same places on a few issues over the course of human existence, but that's about it.

[DaveC426913]

I cannot see the logical reasoning for many actions being condemned and others praised. Tattoos and piercings are a great example.


You're not thinking that any rational person has a judgement on whether tattoos and piercings are morally right or wrong are you?

Certinly a kneejerk reaction of many people is that they are "wrong" but they are merely overstating their stance. If pressed, I guarantee they will concede that personal adornment is not an objective moral call.

Tats and piercings are a straw man argument.

[Pattonias]

It seems to me that the inability to come to a straight answer without redifining the question with a more confined definition of right and wrong is enough to derive a answer.

No, there can be no definite line between right and wrong. This is, of course, my opinion.
The statement itself is a paradox.

[vectorcube]

Buddy, all you do is claim that everyone who disagrees with you, doesn't understand.

What are you really proposing anyway besides throwing down some irrelevant-to-the-real-world philosophy?

Show me how your philosophy provides the correct solution to a real world dilemma.

For the record, i did gave reasons for moral realism. The grounds for it is everywhere in this thread, and this is simply a fact.

Well, you say philosophy is not relevant. I am not really going to get into the relevants of philosophy.

In our case, all you need to know is that modern philosophy is very much like math and logic. Philosophers started with many combinatorical positions, and narrow them down to one or two positions using logic and reason, and the justification is accessible to the non-technical comsumers with patiences.

So if you want to read something technical, then go for post 82. For a non-technical account, try to look at my other posts.

[Pattonias]

I'm ready for the scientifically tested book of morality. It could provide the mathematically proven correct moral responce to all of lifes dilemnas.

[WhoWee]

This thread has run from one extreme to the other - Evo turned in a dollar that didn't belong to her and other posts debated killing people. Can everyone agree the extremes are not equal? The argument can be broken into 3 parts, typical personal behavior, extreme personal behavior, and Government behavior.

As for typical behavior, Evo made a point that small acts count, such as not keeping something that you find - and you can reasonably believe someone else would not throw away. The same argument would apply to a kind act such as helping someone who has fallen on the sidewalk, or appears to be having a heart attack, or perhaps sharing a sandwich with someone who looks like they don't have anything to eat. These are things we can do and decisions we can make on a daily basis. These behaviors define us in society. Helping other people is typically considered "right".

By comparison, whether we decide to kill someone or not also defines us in society. The legal system judges extreme behaviors. Apparently, planned killing by an individual is "wrong" and accidental killing is subject to review.

However, the rules between Governments are different. State sponsored killing is also subject to review - rights and wrongs seem to be subject to interpretation after the fact.

[Pythagorean]

Apparently, planned killing by an individual is "wrong" [...]


Except for when it's sanctioned by the government in either the military or justice system.