Right versus Wrong - Political Forum

trailblazer · 10-13-2006, 06:33 PM

Any thoughts, ideas, or opinions on what is (should be) morally right or morally wrong? Is there some universal litmus test? Can such a test be independent of any religion?

This kind of discussion can also be interesting if you don't have idiots calling someone else stupid every 3 or 4 posts.

emptypepsi · 10-13-2006, 07:28 PM

A great conversation to have, yet, sadly, you're right -- it is often torn apart in discussion.

In my mind, thats a determination that each person has to make for themselves. Some of which is instilled by parents in my belief. If you are raised poorly (not you, just general), you are far more likely to make bad choices and turn into a "bad" person, but thats a whole seperate thread itself. And in turn it will pass that along to your kids as well. You're parents can't go everywhere with you when you are a child/developmental stage, but it is the ideas of morals and the difference between right and wrong that they instill in you that will turn you into the person you eventually become. Thats obvioulsy not always the case, but I think its a tremendous factor. Does any of that make sense? Heheh.

Another thing to ponder in this discussion is a sub-question -- "If laws and the police force were all destroyed tomorrow, would you change what you do that much?" Well I know that if murder became legal tomorrow, I would still not go out and kill anyone. And if drugs became legal tomorrow, I wouldn't run out and do them. However, is that because I believe in what is right and wrong, or have these ways have been imbedded and I have conformed to them for so long? Could it be that education has taught me better? I would like to think that its in my nature to be peaceful and they way I am, and not something that has been pounded in my head. What do you think?

emptypepsi · 10-13-2006, 07:32 PM

However, there are a few exceptions to the "determination" factor, IMO.

For example: a woman is raped by some guy. Instead of going through the channels of the "law of the state" to have this man punished and put away, she finds a way to kill the guy and get away with it. Therefore, she will not be violated by him again (her personal vindication) and no other woman will either (the "greater good"). However, does this vigilante act not demean and undermine the society of law that we have grown successful with? I believe it does. I believe the girl in this situation does not understand the concept of temperance, which has a lot to do with seperating us from our amoral animal instincts to the beings that we are.

trailblazer · 10-13-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Another thing to ponder in this discussion is a sub-question -- "If laws and the police force were all destroyed tomorrow, would you change what you do that much?" Well I know that if murder became legal tomorrow, I would still not go out and kill anyone.

But, all questions of morality aside, you'd be much more LIKELY to kill someone if you lived in total anarchy. Reason being, you'd be much more paranoid, rightly or wrongly, that someone else will try to kill you to take your possessions, rape your relatives, or whatever. Therefore you'd be more inclined to kill in self-defense - real OR imagined.

But that, too, might be fodder for another thread all its own.

Scruff · 10-13-2006, 07:51 PM

There a lot of facets to the question.

Morals must come down to the individual. There is no absolute moral code to adhere to. There are certainly generally accepted moral codes (like the law or the 10 commandments).

As far as what I think is morally acceptable...well, that would take a long time to explain. I could summarize it as keeping myself first, others next, but not intruding on other's right to keep themselves first.

emptypepsi · 10-13-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trailblazer

But, all questions of morality aside, you'd be much more LIKELY to kill someone if you lived in total anarchy. Reason being, you'd be much more paranoid, rightly or wrongly, that someone else will try to kill you to take your possessions, rape your relatives, or whatever. Therefore you'd be more inclined to kill in self-defense - real OR imagined.

But that, too, might be fodder for another thread all its own.

Was I raised in a lawless society in this situation? If so, sure. If my current situation lasts, I doubt it.

As far as self-defense, this is a very curious instance. I would do what I could to escape danger (running, for instance, before engaging). I've 'imagined' threats, once or twice I suppose, but that is where temperance comes into play. I think temperance is one of the bridges between instinct and tactful disinclination, the place where you can determine what is right and wrong to yourself.

trailblazer · 10-13-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruff

There a lot of facets to the question.

Morals must come down to the individual. There is no absolute moral code to adhere to.

Are you sure about that?

It would seem to me that there are certain behaviors that all religions would say are desirable, and certain others that all would forbid. But maybe there aren't such commonalities...the main reason I started this thread.

emptypepsi · 10-13-2006, 08:22 PM

The only moral code that I feel is arguably favored across the board, and one proverb I agree with incredibly is "Treat others as you wish to be treated". I honestly think that most people, if asked directly, would agree to that being a universally just concept, and more so than any other one.

Not to say it is the only proverb that will do humanity any good, but in terms of morality -- it says a lot.

Ygorl · 10-13-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Are you sure about that?

It would seem to me that there are certain behaviors that all religions would say are desirable, and certain others that all would forbid. But maybe there aren't such commonalities...the main reason I started this thread.

It almost looks as if he's making an argument for moral relativism doesn't it ?

Maybe we're (or I'm) not interpreting what he said correctly.

http://www.carm.org/relativism/whatisrelativism.htm

A snippet:

Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of morality and decency, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance", etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography on TV, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong, but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot.

trailblazer · 10-13-2006, 11:51 PM

If anyone's making an argument for moral relativism, I'd say it's Scruff. But I'm not going to go out on that kind of a limb - especially not with someone who likes to jump around as much as Thane.