The concept of right and wrong

I had this conversation once, a long time ago, on the old server. OSF proved to be the only person at that time that could logically and intellectually discuss the topic, but I am hoping this time around a few more people will be able to creatively explain their feelings without judgement.

It seems to me that the concept of right and wrong are merely learned ideas. I see it as a completely subjective matter, that I refuse to buy into. To vegans, eating meat is wrong. To omnivores, it is merely a part of life. Therefore there is no set right and wrong in that situation. Merely a matter of opinion.

That being the case, murder, theft, fraud, and other hurtful activities, to be consistant, should be viewed the same way. If you feel it is wrong to steal, it is, most likely, because you were taught that. On the other hand if somebody fails to agree and chooses to steal, who are we to judge them? I know plenty of atheists that don't appreciate being judged and lectured by christians and catholics, but would just as soon bitch at and judge somebody who steals from another person.

 

to serial killers, it is ok to murder under certain circumstances, which is easily dismissed. but to poor people, its ok to steal to feed your family. thats ok, i guess.


i guess the way to put it is:

different people have different ideas of whats right and wrong. that will never change. but the constants will always remain the same, .like murder, rape, and the like. other things are circumstantial. like stealing (for necessity, not fun)

 

for me, it's moreso whether or not that action truly hurts someone

rape hurts someone, murder hurts someone, theft can hurt someone

religious choice doesn't hurt someone, food choice doesnt' hurt people, etc.

 

I have noticed that both of you are willing to draw a line as to when certain wrongs are ok, and when they are not. But doesn't that on its own go to show just how fickle the definition of right and wrong are? That is like saying something is only wrong if you cannot justify it.

To death: You listed murder as a constant, but I am going to have to disagree with this. Even in our own judicial system we label hundreds of cases a year as "justifiable homicide". Which does not always completely conclude self defense. In one case a woman shot a man in his sleep. Her reasoning was that he had been beating her and her family. Also that he regularly molested her. It was ruled a justified homicide, even though there was no harmful act currently taking place.

To Ihmurria: Why is it when we worry about that which we hurt, it extends only to our own race, for most of us? While I'm a firm believer that animals do not have a sense of right and wrong, except for the artificial sense they are given when trained, I believe they still have a sense of community with their family. When a deer is shot by a hunter to feed his family, we have no quarrell. Although if someone were to shoot one of our family members for the sake of feeding their family, we'd have a major problem with it, correct?

 

Right and wrong can never really be justified. This debate could go on for eons and still...there would be no set rule. Because even as people say that right and wrong is subjective...the idea that right and wrong is subjective is subject to change itself. Murder is wrong...to some. To others it's a way of life. In all cases you people will live as they choose to live, and believe what they choose to believe (usually what they have been taught to believe).

On the matter of hurting someone - we choose to let any action hurt us. We first have to perceive that we are being hurt to feel pain, do we not? Kind of like (I know this is a silly way to put it) when you get a cut, and don't notice it. It can be bleeding and you won't feel it until you either notice the blood or someone asks you how you got hurt. At that moment you will perceive yourself to be hurt, and therefore create pain to put it into your reality.

I think that was a bit off topic, however.

 

I am not sure, but I do believe that by saying the subjectivity of concepts is, in itself, subject to change means that there may eventually be a set rule. That's really the only thing it could change to, am I correct?

That is my precise point. As children I think everybody at one point or another intentionally did something potentially hurtful. Stole something petty or hit somebody that made us mad. We thought nothing of this until we were scorned told what to think. This, on its own, seems to nullify the idea of right and wrong. It's not a sense we are born with, it's something we learn.

I must say, I agree with this assessment. I think the parallel to physical pain is a little off because of scientific reasonsings around physical pain, but as I said, I agree with the initial point. We choose to care or not to care about the actions of others. Caring about those actions is what leads us to be hurt. Granted, I do believe it goes against the nature of most people not to care, but nevertheless, they still have the choice.