NationStates Jolt Archive

Several recent threads have piqued my curiosity on what basis each of you decides what is "right" or "wrong."

Generations of philosophers have written entire libraries on issues dealing with "morality," yet what it actually boils down to, IMHO, is what you as an individual choose to believe.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this.

Several recent threads have piqued my curiosity on what basis each of you decides what is "right" or "wrong."

Generations of philosophers have written entire libraries on issues dealing with "morality," yet what it actually boils down to, IMHO, is what you as an individual choose to believe.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this.

Nothing "determines" whether something is right or wrong any more than anyhing determines whether something is beautiful or ugly.

It is a property that exists only in the eye of the beholder... a subjective evaluation made based on whatever criteria that observer has adopted for making moral judgements. Whether that criteria be a set of religious precepts, or some other kind of philosophical framework, or just however they decide to react to their gut impulse and sense of empathy.

A thing can only be right or wrong to a person. Just as something can only be beautiful or ugly to a person. As such the same thing can have both properties when being evaluated independently by multiple individuals since the property is a function of the observer more so than it is a property of the object or action being evaluated.

Hence the reason societies are governed by a legal code, and not a moral code. The former can be applied universally while the latter cannot, because legal codes do not try (or at least are not supposed to try) to comment on whether something is right or wrong, only whether something is permitted or not permitted.

Several recent threads have piqued my curiosity on what basis each of you decides what is "right" or "wrong."

Generations of philosophers have written entire libraries on issues dealing with "morality," yet what it actually boils down to, IMHO, is what you as an individual choose to believe.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this.

Very much true.

My personal thoughts on right and wrong is based on if your actions are going to hurt someone. Now, hurting oneself if one's own business as long as thier actions don't harm others. Eg: drinking and driving.

Several recent threads have piqued my curiosity on what basis each of you decides what is "right" or "wrong."

Generations of philosophers have written entire libraries on issues dealing with "morality," yet what it actually boils down to, IMHO, is what you as an individual choose to believe.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this.


I'd have to say it's not any one thing (especially what you've listed) but several or all of them that helps shape my sense of right/wrong. If i'm ever really really stuck on the right or wrong issue, i ask myself, "would my Grandmother [or anyone i respect and love] approve or think this is wrong?" That usually helps when i'm not sure

i take bits of philosophies (or even religions) i like/agree with and clump them all together, and mix them with my own philosophy/musings to find morality.

as for how i justify it, the only reason i can give is that i have thought long & hard about many of these issues - the issue of morality - and study philosophy (of a sort), so my mind may be 'open' and 'more informed' than those who do not care about the issue of morality and simply follow the moral rules given to them. the fact that i have thought about the issue, it could be argued, gives more weight to my opinion. and thats all morality is, as you say in the OP, just opinion.
but truth be told, i have no moral authority - no grounding for my moral opinion to be favoured over anyone else's, which is why i'm not one to tell people what to do and why i have my 'live & let live' policy

I know if something is right wrong by my gut feeling. I can't really explain it, I just know if something is wrong.

Nothing "determines" whether something is right or wrong any more than anyhing determines whether something is beautiful or ugly.

It is a property that exists only in the eye of the beholder... a subjective evaluation made based on whatever criteria that observer has adopted for making moral judgements. Whether that criteria be a set of religious precepts, or some other kind of philosophical framework, or just however they decide to react to their gut impulse and sense of empathy.

A thing can only be right or wrong to a person. Just as something can only be beautiful or ugly to a person. As such the same thing can have both properties when being evaluated independently by multiple individuals since the property is a function of the observer more so than it is a property of the object or action being evaluated.

Hence the reason societies are governed by a legal code, and not a moral code. The former can be applied universally while the latter cannot, because legal codes do not try (or at least are not supposed to try) to comment on whether something is right or wrong, only whether something is permitted or not permitted.
No societal consensus? No public agreement?

On what basis is the decision to permit or not permit some specific behavior made?

Very much true.

My personal thoughts on right and wrong is based on if your actions are going to hurt someone. Now, hurting oneself if one's own business as long as thier actions don't harm others. Eg: drinking and driving.
Very good arguments have been made that any sort of negative behavior, whether physically harming another or not, harms the body politic in some way.

I'd have to say it's not any one thing (especially what you've listed) but several or all of them that helps shape my sense of right/wrong. If i'm ever really really stuck on the right or wrong issue, i ask myself, "would my Grandmother [or anyone i respect and love] approve or think this is wrong?" That usually helps when i'm not sure
The poll allows you to choose any and all options you perfer.

Hence the reason societies are governed by a legal code, and not a moral code. The former can be applied universally while the latter cannot, because legal codes do not try (or at least are not supposed to try) to comment on whether something is right or wrong, only whether something is permitted or not permitted.

But legal codes deal with punishment and rehabilitation, as well as deterrence and prevention.

And the legal system is constantly comments on whether things are right or wrong.

i take bits of philosophies (or even religions) i like/agree with and clump them all together, and mix them with my own philosophy/musings to find morality.

as for how i justify it, the only reason i can give is that i have thought long & hard about many of these issues - the issue of morality - and study philosophy (of a sort), so my mind may be 'open' and 'more informed' than those who do not care about the issue of morality and simply follow the moral rules given to them. the fact that i have thought about the issue, it could be argued, gives more weight to my opinion. and thats all morality is, as you say in the OP, just opinion.
but truth be told, i have no moral authority - no grounding for my moral opinion to be favoured over anyone else's, which is why i'm not one to tell people what to do and why i have my 'live & let live' policy
If everyone felt this way, how would we decide as a society what is right and what is wrong? No opportunity for consensus?

I know if something is right wrong by my gut feeling. I can't really explain it, I just know if something is wrong.
Sounds as if you need to think all this through. Going strictly on "gut feelings" can be very chancy at best.

The poll allows you to choose any and all options you perfer.


Ya, but i went with other 'cause i'm lazy and it was only one click :)

Sounds as if you need to think all this through. Going strictly on "gut feelings" can be very chancy at best.
Yeah, but I dont go on just gut feeling. I can't quite work out what the other 'bits' that I go off are.

No societal consensus? No public agreement?

On laws? Yes. On morals? Not necessary. They're a personal matter.

On what basis is the decision to permit or not permit some specific behavior made?

As now we're talking laws and not morals, the majority opinion of the framers of those laws as to what behaviour they choose to permit or not. This may be, and in many cases is, an outgrowth of the moral opinions of the people in that position... but the end result is still a very different thing.

Laws basically say "Go ahead and think this action is right. Go ahead and think this action is wrong. But by the authority of this governing body it is declared that this action IS illegal, no two ways about it, and if you try to actually perform this action you will be disciplined."

Tough decision. Philosophy or practical rule?
As a rule of thumb: basic law of general practical reasoning (???, sorry, read the german original, only) as Kant put it.
Easier than that hedonistic calculation thing by Mill, in my opinion.
What embarrasses me is the fact that most (aproximately 5.99999 billion people) distinguish right from wrong only/mostly respecting (the standing) of the person.

Just noticed, I'm running out of brackets, have to go and get some more ;)

I can tell when things are right because i think "which hand would I write with" and then if it is a person who is facing me I think "it is the one on the opposite side on them."


And it is a piece of linguistic tyrannicism, racism almost, that leads people to say things like "wrong."

If something is wrong, it harms someone, or myself. That is a very simple explanation of my view.

However, I never base my actions on what is right or wrong, since those concepts register very little in importance in my mind.

Right or wrong are irrelevant, it is whether it is useful that dictates whether I do it or not. Something can be very 'wrong', but it does not mean that I will feel guilt or regret after doing it. Useful to me, or to others, it doesn't matter. It has to be useful to me in some way for me to go out of my way to do it.

'Right and wrong' are just labels or qualities attached to an act or thing, adverbs or adjectives like 'quickly' or 'blue'.

If everyone felt this way, how would we decide as a society what is right and what is wrong? No opportunity for consensus?
yeah i know, the that way of thinking doesn't really do me any favours either :(

i suppose a society, if that mentality is to be followed, it has to be a dictatorship - like Plato and the philospher-kings who would debate and think about morality/the issues and... stufff

But legal codes deal with punishment and rehabilitation, as well as deterrence and prevention.

Of course they do.

And the legal system is constantly comments on whether things are right or wrong.

The legal system is only capable of commenting on whether something is legal or illegal. Laws cannot establish morals.

If they could all the evangelical types around here would have to say abortion was morally acceptable simply because it was legal.

Morals = Right or wrong.
Laws = Permitted or not permitted, REGARDLESS of whether or not anyone thinks it is right or wrong. Your sincere position that any illegal action you performed was morally right has absolutely no bearing and will afford you no defense in a courtroom.

I'm not even gonna read the shit that came before because I don't really give two shits about what you people think or believe in.

I decide based upon a set of criteria that society, my early enviroment (how I was raised), and my own opinions and thoughts have shaped. Much of it is more instictual (read 'feeling-oriented') then logical, but there is alot of hard cold cynical logic in the mix.

Pretty much, I go on the fact that everyone is a selfish bitch. Even those guys that give their entire fortune to charity are going more on the hope that in the 'next life' they will get to heaven because of their 'selfless' act then any actual desire to help others. In fact, even that desire is a selfish thing as it makes the one who feels the desire feel GOOD when they help others. But anyway, we're all selfish bitches. So . . . why should I fucking do what you say I should do? From what I can tell, every more (said 'mor-ay') is designed to help one set group of people in some way shape or form. I've seen 'moral' people use their morals as some sort of seperation to make them feel better or superior to another group of people. I've seen the best of intentions make the worst of circumstances. So, ya know what?

Screw you and your society, I'ma do what I want to do, what I feel good doing, and you can go take a flying leap. Only thing I will worry abuot is all this legal shit you people cling to (as if it matters) and what it means to me since I have to live in this shithole society.

Ask me in about three days and my veiws will completely change. I'm feeling my most cynical and anti-social when I get home from work and *fucking gasp* I just GOT HOME!!

On laws? Yes. On morals? Not necessary. They're a personal matter.

As now we're talking laws and not morals, the majority opinion of the framers of those laws as to what behaviour they choose to permit or not. This may be, and in many cases is, an outgrowth of the moral opinions of the people in that position... but the end result is still a very different thing.

Laws basically say "Go ahead and think this action is right. Go ahead and think this action is wrong. But by the authority of this governing body it is declared that this action IS illegal, no two ways about it, and if you try to actually perform this action you will be disciplined."
So the law has no basis in morality of any sort? The law is "amoral?"

Nothing "determines" whether something is right or wrong any more than anyhing determines whether something is beautiful or ugly.

It is a property that exists only in the eye of the beholder... a subjective evaluation made based on whatever criteria that observer has adopted for making moral judgements. Whether that criteria be a set of religious precepts, or some other kind of philosophical framework, or just however they decide to react to their gut impulse and sense of empathy.

A thing can only be right or wrong to a person. Just as something can only be beautiful or ugly to a person. As such the same thing can have both properties when being evaluated independently by multiple individuals since the property is a function of the observer more so than it is a property of the object or action being evaluated.

Hence the reason societies are governed by a legal code, and not a moral code. The former can be applied universally while the latter cannot, because legal codes do not try (or at least are not supposed to try) to comment on whether something is right or wrong, only whether something is permitted or not permitted.

^^^^
^YEP^

On laws yes there needs to be consensus, but truely right and wrong are nothing but human-made concepts.

And it is a piece of linguistic tyrannicism, racism almost, that leads people to say things like "wrong."
That's a bit strong, don't you think? I suspect that what most people mean by using emotially laden words like "wrong" (whether they realize it or not ) is, "Given what I believe, this particular thing is wrong."

If something is wrong, it harms someone, or myself. That is a very simple explanation of my view.

However, I never base my actions on what is right or wrong, since those concepts register very little in importance in my mind.

Right or wrong are irrelevant, it is whether it is useful that dictates whether I do it or not. Something can be very 'wrong', but it does not mean that I will feel guilt or regret after doing it. Useful to me, or to others, it doesn't matter. It has to be useful to me in some way for me to go out of my way to do it.

'Right and wrong' are just labels or qualities attached to an act or thing, adverbs or adjectives like 'quickly' or 'blue'.
So if it's "useful" to get your immediate supervisor out of the way, for example, that's not wrong?

I'm not even gonna read the shit that came before because I don't really give two shits about what you people think or believe in.

I decide based upon a set of criteria that society, my early enviroment (how I was raised), and my own opinions and thoughts have shaped. Much of it is more instictual (read 'feeling-oriented') then logical, but there is alot of hard cold cynical logic in the mix.

Pretty much, I go on the fact that everyone is a selfish bitch. Even those guys that give their entire fortune to charity are going more on the hope that in the 'next life' they will get to heaven because of their 'selfless' act then any actual desire to help others. In fact, even that desire is a selfish thing as it makes the one who feels the desire feel GOOD when they help others. But anyway, we're all selfish bitches. So . . . why should I fucking do what you say I should do? From what I can tell, every more (said 'mor-ay') is designed to help one set group of people in some way shape or form. I've seen 'moral' people use their morals as some sort of seperation to make them feel better or superior to another group of people. I've seen the best of intentions make the worst of circumstances. So, ya know what?

Screw you and your society, I'ma do what I want to do, what I feel good doing, and you can go take a flying leap. Only thing I will worry abuot is all this legal shit you people cling to (as if it matters) and what it means to me since I have to live in this shithole society.

Ask me in about three days and my veiws will completely change. I'm feeling my most cynical and anti-social when I get home from work and *fucking gasp* I just GOT HOME!!
That has to be one of the most cynical and depressing things I've read in quite awhile. It must be sad to have become so cynical at such an early age.

That's a bit strong, don't you think? I suspect that what most people mean by using emotially laden words like "wrong" (whether they realize it or not ) is, "Given what I believe, this particular thing is wrong."


I suspect, Mr Etrusca, and am well founded in doing so that you have missed my point entirely.

So the law has no basis in morality of any sort? The law is "amoral?"



Are you asking if there is a universal right or wrong and how to determine that? If you are speaking of personally held beliefs of what right or wrong are then I think reformentias arguments are crystal clear.

Generations of philosophers have written entire libraries on issues dealing with "morality," yet what it actually boils down to, IMHO, is what you as an individual choose to believe.

Oh, finally a nice and easy thread on something we all can agree on :D

I was being sarcastic, for those who didn't notice.

My measure for right or wrong is in how much would a certain action impact on the happiness of how many. I'm a bit materialistic with my definition of happiness, which usually include things like wealth, health, liberty, education, etc.

The difficulty is on how to be sure what all the consequences of such action will be, especially long term.

So the law has no basis in morality of any sort? The law is "amoral?"

When laws are originally codified the moral opinions of all of the framers undoubtedly play a role in that formation. I doubt they could avoid it even if they tried... and I doubt they'd do that either.

However, in their practical application laws do not make moral judgements. They do not tell you you have to think something is moral or immoral, they just tell you what you will not be permitted to actually DO.

So in that sense, yes, laws are amoral. The current law of the United States for example does not say it is moral to have an abortion. It simply says it will be permitted. Whether or not actually doing so is moral or immoral is a personal judgement that the law has no business sticking it's nose into.

Hence the old saying "you can't legislate morality". You simply can't dictate to people what they should or should not consider to be moral, and trying isn't somethng that comes highly recommended if you want to maintain an orderly society. People tend to react badly to it... much more so than to having codes of conduct dictated to them.

I suspect, Mr Etrusca, and am well founded in doing so that you have missed my point entirely.
Sorry. Could you try again, please?

The legal system is only capable of commenting on whether something is legal or illegal. Laws cannot establish morals.

If they could all the evangelical types around here would have to say abortion was morally acceptable simply because it was legal.

Morals = Right or wrong.
Laws = Permitted or not permitted, REGARDLESS of whether or not anyone thinks it is right or wrong. Your sincere position that any illegal action you performed was morally right has absolutely no bearing and will afford you no defense in a courtroom.

What about illegal orders then Mr. Positivist. Or civil disobdience. Should we lock up those civil rights protestors and throw away the key, they are lawbreakers after all. Should Nelson Mandela go and finish the rest of his sentence? Was the defense at the Nuremberg trials of only following orders actually the correct one?

And why does the legal system speak directly to punishment. Why does it talk about justice. If there was no moral component. It's only concern should be to minimize and prevent the incidence of 'permitted actions'.

It's just not that clear cut.

^^^^
^YEP^

On laws yes there needs to be consensus, but truely right and wrong are nothing but human-made concepts.
Um ... so are laws a "human made concept." :confused:

And why does the legal system speak directly to punishment. Why does it talk about justice. If there was no moral component. It's only concern should be to minimize and prevent the incidence of 'permitted actions'.
Ahh ... justice. Is that a "moral" term or just a "legal" term?

Ahh ... justice. Is that a "moral" term or just a "legal" term?

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.

I never liked him though. Anyway courts of law and equity were merged before he was on the bench.

Three things determine what's right and wrong for me: my personal beliefs, the law, and practicality. The thing about these three however is...they all kinda contradict eachother, which is my way of balancing out the universe!

My personal beliefs all follow this basic principle: humans have been given free will, and thus must be allowed to do whatever they wish. However, this ideal is held in check by the other two principles, which provide consequences of our actions: the law and practicality. Say if you kill someone, that is your choice, but it was also your choice to break the law, and thus you will be punished. Also, say you squander all your money on jewlery, but what you really needed was a new car because the old one died recently, that is a lesson in practicality.

So in the end: do as you will, but know that there are consequences for every action.

Um ... so are laws a "human made concept." :confused:

If humans didnt make the laws of the land then who did? Are you going senile already at such a young age? :p

What about illegal orders then Mr. Positivist.

What about them?

Or civil disobdience. Should we lock up those civil rights protestors and throw away the key, they are lawbreakers after all.

Legally, yes. If you break a law, you experience the designated punishment. What exactly do you think is so difficult about this concept?

Morally, I really couldn't say without some more specific details.

You know, you keep saying you know the difference between laws and morals but then you keep conducting yourself as if you think they're the same thing.

Should Nelson Mandela go and finish the rest of his sentence?

Legally: Is he required to under the currently existing law of the country?

Morally: No, it is my personal opinion that that shouldn't be required.

Oh look, two different answers based on two different concepts again.

Was the defense at the Nuremberg trials of only following orders actually the correct one?

You know, you're really going to have to start saying if you're asking a legal or a moral question with these things since it's difficult to tell with you.

Legally: it would depend on which legal system the trial was occuring within, which I'm a little fuzzy on since I've never been much of a "Nazi or things related buff"

Morally: No. It wasn't. ***I.M.O.***

And why does the legal system speak directly to punishment.

Why wouldn't it? You do something you are not permitted to do, you pay the penalty. What's so complicated about that? It's a basic principle of maintaining order.

Why does it talk about justice.

Because sometime people get a little too full of themselves, and confuse morality with legality.

If there was no moral component. It's only concern should be to minimize and prevent the incidence of 'permitted actions'.

Yup.

It's just not that clear cut.

Because there are too many people like you running around who can't tell the difference between laws and morals.

I don't know about anyone else, but the very fact that most people have a sense of right or wrong instills me with hope.

Even people like Hitler and Stalin acted out of personal conviction for what they thought was right. Sometimes that conviction was the main problem in and of itself. But the fact that even sociopaths have been dead set on convincing everyone that they are in the right attests to the fact that none of us are totalling cold-blooded.

We all seem to have moral compasses. IMO it's the calibration that's the problem. ;)

There is no right and wrong.

There's only things that make me hurt you, and things that don't.

When a bunch of people decide that something should involve getting your ass kicked, they make a law about it, and set up a group to enforce the ass-kicking so they can do other things.

What about them?

Well, the law expects you to follow all orders that are legal, and disregard all that are legal. But there is no list of what orders are illegal, you are expected to tell the difference. You are expected to make a moral judgment about every order you recieve, and if you make the wrong one, you may be subject to prosecution for it.

Thus the US legal code explicitly recognizes the function of morality within it's own framework, and will pass specific judgment, in certain instances, upon whether or any given action was moral or immoral.

So you can say what you like about law and morality. You are at odds with the system.

Legally, yes. If you break a law, you experience the designated punishment. What exactly do you think is so difficult about this concept?

Ah, but legally you don't always get punished. It doesn't work that way at all.


You know, you keep saying you know the difference between laws and morals but then you keep conducting yourself as if you think they're the same thing.

No, because I do actually understand the difference.


Why wouldn't it? You do something you are not permitted to do, you pay the penalty. What's so complicated about that? It's a basic principle of maintaining order.

This is problem with positivism though. Say we passed a law that required the execution of all left handed people. Would you just sit there and say, hmm well it's all perfectly legal, I don't approve, but that's just my personal opinion. But if tyranny doesn't bother you, then whatever.

Because sometime people get a little too full of themselves, and confuse morality with legality.



Because there are too many people like you running around who can't tell the difference between laws and morals.

I am not going to dignify this.

Well, the law expects you to follow all orders that are legal, and disregard all that are legal. But there is no list of what orders are illegal, you are expected to tell the difference.

Because you are expected to acquaint yourself with the law. That's why ignorance of the law isn't a legal defense.

You are expected to make a moral judgment about every order you recieve, and if you make the wrong one, you may be subject to prosecution for it.

No, you are expected to conduct a legal evaluation of every order you receive. That might just possibly be why they refer to them as illegal orders instead of immoral orders.

But yeah, you know the difference between laws and morals. :rolleyes:

Thus the US legal code explicitly recognizes the function of morality within it's own framework,

No it doesn't.

Ah, but legally you don't always get punished.

Only if there is provision under the law for you not to be punished... or you are found not to be guilty of violating the law in the first place.

No, because I do actually understand the difference.

Sure you do... that's why you thought the way to determine if an order was illegal or not was by morally judging it.

This is problem with positivism though. Say we passed a law that required the execution of all left handed people. Would you just sit there and say, hmm well it's all perfectly legal, I don't approve, but that's just my personal opinion.

Of course not. And not just because I happen to BE left handed.

If I felt a strong enough moral conviction in opposition to the dictates of a law I would obviously take action... unless of course I felt an even stronger moral conviction that the law should always be obeyed. I really doubt I would in that particular case however.

That wouldn't change the legality of executing left handed people one little bit of course... at least unless I managed to get the law changed again.

But I am absolutely and completely lost as to how you thought anything I said in this discussion implied I either would or should do what you described.

I determine if something is right or wrong. It's a complicated proccess that I don't care to explain right now. :D