Right or wrong?

[maturin]

No killing can ever be justified.

That is certainly my belief. And any statement to the contrary is a dangerous invitation to self-deception and abuse of false morality.

 

All killing is wrong. It is a 'sin,' whether you believe in God or not. It is a trespass against yourself and society as well as your victim. The difference is the degree to which that wrongdoing can be accepted by society, and whether the killer acted under sufficient mitigating circumstances to be forgiven and to forgive his or herself.

 

Killing and war is never the only option, nor the best option. So you say that a man wants to kill you for your wallet, or harm your loved ones. Most of us would say that lethal force is justified in such a case, but the best, most moral act would still be to escape from him or incapacitate him. Now, do not imagine for a minute that I am condemning the use of lethal force in self-defense, or that I am advocating absolute pacifism. Far from it. Sometimes the better, more moral choice is physically impossible or infeasible. Sometimes killing and war and necessary. But it is never good. It is never anything more than a vile act and a tragedy.

 

In the world today we see millions of people and dozens of governments, all of whom wait in feverish anticipation of the day when an enemy will give them an excuse to wage righteous war or embark on justified killing. They salivate at the prospect, and in mind this betrays a mind that harbors more evil than many murderers, who may kill because they are lost, desperate or starving.

 

Killing can be rationalized and excused, but it is never right, and always demands forgiveness.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Nah, we are just average armchair philosophers. The real ones in the universities would probably laugh at us.

 

However, have fun with that Tequila. Oh, and would you like a slice of lemon to go with that?

 

You bet!

[Djent33]

I just saw a moth fly in front of my monitor, I don’t know if it was under IFR or VFR plan, don’t know what I’ll do when I find it, I’m gonna turn and release some flairs and then see if it comes up on the radar scan.

[Flagrum]

I just saw a moth fly in front of my monitor, I don’t know if it was under IFR or VFR plan, don’t know what I’ll do when I find it, I’m gonna turn and release some flairs and then see if it comes up on the radar scan.

You should quit smoking that stuff - whatever it is ...

[NeilWillis]

Any war that happened was justified to those that participated in it. No need to be specific even. When you say a war was controversial, someone else might disagree. Even if you and others that were not involved do not accept their reasoning it does not change the fact that there are people that think it was justified. So who is right? You think you are right. They think they are right. There is no objective answer. Just subjective answers.

 

Every individual has its own mind and its own ideas. It's inevitable that the ideas of someone at some point collides with the ideas of someone else. And the view that one's own opinion is objectively right and someone else is objectively wrong doesn't exactly prevent conflict (no matter how good you think you are and how evil you think someone else is).

 

A conflict like that could easily lead to war!

 

That's why I say politics should be abolished, there'd be less arguments :music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling:

[eurofor]

A conflict like that could easily lead to war!

 

That's why I say politics should be abolished, there'd be less arguments :music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling:

 

Without being able to decide on policies in a society and without any leadership you wouldn't have less arguments, you would have more. Everyone would be pulling in different directions. Then you would have a conflict. That's not the solution. If you want to prevent certain types of what you see as misuse, it would be a better idea to instead change the political system.

[Kuky]

stealing bread when you are hungry (and can't afford to buy it) is not always wrong... stealing bread from the hungry is wrong, stealing from the rich is not wrong... the comment saying "stealing bread is wrong because someone else will be hungry" proves my point... the rich are never hungry. Whoever said otherwise is full of it (or just lying) :music_whistling:

 

PS: Law is not always right/just... law is made up rules (sometimes just, sometimes unjust/dishonest people aka politicians) to suit someone's needs/ideas.etc. Fact that you are not allowed to beat up someone that broke into your home (if you catch him) is morally wrong... rule/law should be, if someone breaks the law by entering my lawful space, they are taking my rights... so likewise I should then be able to take their rights there on the spot and beat the living s**t in them... and there are plenty of other examples that are like this... I rest my case

Edited July 25, 2014 by Kuky

[maturin]

Stealing is always wrong, and stealing is not forbidden by law, but by morality. Stealing entails a disrespect for the victim; it deprives them not just of property but their free choice and opportunity to use that property for any purpose. It can be an emotional as well as physical crime against their sense of security or even their respect for the thief him/herself.

 

Stealing bread from the rich when you are hungry is WRONG. It's just a question of degree. You could easily envision a situation where a moral rich person would readily forgive the thief his crime, because circumstances made the immoral act so seemingly minor.

[Schnittertm]

Stealing is always wrong, and stealing is not forbidden by law, but by morality. Stealing entails a disrespect for the victim; it deprives them not just of property but their free choice and opportunity to use that property for any purpose. It can be an emotional as well as physical crime against their sense of security or even their respect for the thief him/herself.

 

Stealing bread from the rich when you are hungry is WRONG. It's just a question of degree. You could easily envision a situation where a moral rich person would readily forgive the thief his crime, because circumstances made the immoral act so seemingly minor.

 

In turn you could say you are only liberating stolen goods from a legal thief. Many rich people aren't rich because they just got lucky or in the right spot, but because they exploited other people, more guillible people or legally stole from them.

 

Also, I would still remind you that stealing must not be universally wrong. It is, though not with humans, quite possible to imagine a hypothetical society where each and every one shares equally in all property available. There you would not have stealing. Stealing really only works with concepts like personal property, if there is no personal property, it can't be stealing.

[eurofor]

Stealing is always wrong, and stealing is not forbidden by law, but by morality. Stealing entails a disrespect for the victim; it deprives them not just of property but their free choice and opportunity to use that property for any purpose. It can be an emotional as well as physical crime against their sense of security or even their respect for the thief him/herself.

 

Stealing bread from the rich when you are hungry is WRONG. It's just a question of degree. You could easily envision a situation where a moral rich person would readily forgive the thief his crime, because circumstances made the immoral act so seemingly minor.

 

Always wrong? I suppose you then consider morality to be objective and separate from subjectivity?

[maturin]

Many rich people aren't rich because they just got lucky or in the right spot, but because they exploited other people, more guillible people or legally stole from them.

Now, I know that everyone has heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' before they can even spell the words.

 

Also, I would still remind you that stealing must not be universally wrong. Stealing really only works with concepts like personal property, if there is no personal property, it can't be stealing.

I do not follow your thinking here. If property is held in common, then taking property does not constitute stealing. The morality of stealing is determined by the consent of both parties. This should be obvious.

 

I can stand in front of two people, each holding an apple. If one considers the apple his, and one considers it communal property, then I could take both apples and only have stolen one of them. Stealing is still universally wrong. Indeed, the only definition of stealing is 'taking something when it is considered wrong.' If I take an idol from a shrine, it can be considered stealing even if the object is supposed to belong to imaginary gods or abstract concepts.

[maturin]

Always wrong? I suppose you then consider morality to be objective and separate from subjectivity?

Theft is a special case because the moral censure of the act is embedded in the very term itself. If a theft is not wrong, then it ceases to be theft and becomes a simple act of taking, or use, or borrowing.

 

 

But I am mostly explaining my own view of morality here. I view morality as subjective but based in broad characteristics of the human psyche that are usually shared across cultures. I don't see how morality can be objective or derived from natural laws, and don't believe in any creator or supernatural forces that could arbitrate moral rules.

 

Therefore, theft is always wrong, but the criteria of what constitute theft are open to interpretation. And since the most important aspect of theft is the lack of consent by the victim, it is the victim's interpretation of theft that matters. If someone from a culture that does not believe in private property takes an object from someone who obviously does, then that is theft.

 

I contend that certain actions are always wrong, because I believe that people must adhere to their morals, whatever those may be, in a fashion that recognizes the absolute strictures of those rules. People who say that 'killing/stealing is usually wrong but not always' are not thinking morally, but opportunistically, seeking to excuse themselves from the dictates of their conscious. People need to realize that the moral imperatives can conflict, and when they make compromise one rule for the sake of another, they must be honest with themselves about what they are doing.

Edited July 25, 2014 by maturin

[159th_Falcon]

Right or wrong is just an arbitrary meaning that is subjective to someone's personal beliefs and morals.

 

As such there is no right or wrong answer to the question what is right or wrong.

 

All answers will be right or wrong depending on the person that's judging.

 

And that's a fact.

[eurofor]

Theft is a special case because the moral censure of the act is embedded in the very term itself. If a theft is not wrong, then it ceases to be theft and becomes a simple act of taking, or use, or borrowing.

 

 

But I am mostly explaining my own view of morality here. I view morality as subjective but based in broad characteristics of the human psyche that are usually shared across cultures. I don't see how morality can be objective or derived from natural laws, and don't believe in any creator or supernatural forces that could arbitrate moral rules.

 

Therefore, theft is always wrong, but the criteria of what constitute theft are open to interpretation. And since the most important aspect of theft is the lack of consent by the victim, it is the victim's interpretation of theft that matters. If someone from a culture that does not believe in private property takes an object from someone who obviously does, then that is theft.

 

I contend that certain actions are always wrong, because I believe that people must adhere to their morals, whatever those may be, in a fashion that recognizes the absolute strictures of those rules. People who say that 'killing/stealing is usually wrong but not always' are not thinking morally, but opportunistically, seeking to excuse themselves from the dictates of their conscious. People need to realize that the moral imperatives can conflict, and when they make compromise one rule for the sake of another, they must be honest with themselves about what they are doing.

 

Yes of course, I should have read your post more carefully and taken notice of your wording. My first post in this thread was even remarking on the use of this word.

 

I agree with your view. It's very much so that our human psyche has characteristics that make the vast majority share certain values. Some acts can be seen as wrong collectively but still subjectively. Killing is the prime example. It's based in a survival instinct for our own preservation. Evolution has favoured the behaviour of avoiding such acts.

Edited July 26, 2014 by eurofor

[Schnittertm]

Now, I know that everyone has heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' before they can even spell the words.

 

 

I do not follow your thinking here. If property is held in common, then taking property does not constitute stealing. The morality of stealing is determined by the consent of both parties. This should be obvious.

 

I can stand in front of two people, each holding an apple. If one considers the apple his, and one considers it communal property, then I could take both apples and only have stolen one of them. Stealing is still universally wrong. Indeed, the only definition of stealing is 'taking something when it is considered wrong.' If I take an idol from a shrine, it can be considered stealing even if the object is supposed to belong to imaginary gods or abstract concepts.

 

 

But is it really the case that two wrongs don't make one right. It certainly needs to be considered where the right and wrong comes from, then, doesn't it?

 

Let us consider the legend of Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, mainly because the rich were in power and taxed the poor in such a way that the poor weren't able to feed themselves and their families anymore. Also, the poor were not able to mount an effective defence against trained and armed soldiers.

 

Now, legally, and since everyone in this society agreed on property being generally a personal thing, Robin Hood was certainly wrong in doing what he did. But from a moral standpoint many, I included, would argue that he was right in what he did, he corrected the unjust law imposed upon those that were not able to defend themselves against the lawmakers.

 

It is a bit of what, in D&D terms (other nerds might know that), is considered a Chaotic Good character, a character that does what is morally right, but not necessarily while abiding the law or while even outright breaking it.

 

As for the apple example. Yes one might consider it his property, but if he is in a society that considers everything common property, then he would be wrong doing so, he would be going against the general consent of that society. Therefore he might consider it stealing, but by the rules of that society it would not be stealing. That person might even be reprimanded for not sharing the apple and considering it his personal property.

 

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, those are terms that philosophers have struggled with since the homo sapiens became sentient and societally develop enough to create, consider and enforce such concepts. We still haven't found a way to objectively judge either of those things, as they are very subjective objects, that are influenced by how evolution has developed us. We might never find an objective basis for either of that and only go by a general consent of what the majority believes to be the good and the bad of those above concepts.

 

If Tasmanian devils would be sentient enough to develop concepts of right and wrong, then you might find for them that it is acceptable for only the strongest to survive, as female devils give live birth to more infants than she can feed and therefore competition for the zits giving milk is fierce. Roughly 60% of the littler will not survive this. This, again, might then go into property considerations, if someone is able to conquer property from someone else, because he is stronger, then it would be possible that it is not considered theft. If someone was weaker and just slyly taking it, he might be considered a thief.

 

Bottom line, this is a subject that we humans will struggle with for, if we live that long, millenia to come and a subject that will always be changing. It is certainly easier talking about the physical properties of a stone.

[gavagai]

One thing a lot of you have glossed over in this discussion:

 

There are two kinds of moral relativism, descriptive and prescriptive.

 

Descriptive relativism is just the observation that moral beliefs vary from culture to culture.

 

Prescriptive relativism goes further and says that you ought not to criticize moral beliefs different from your own, or that you have no justification for doing so.

 

Descriptive relativism does not imply prescriptive relativism. Look up David Hume and whether you can derive an ought from an is.

 

This thread is a good example of why everyone should be required to take at least one philosophy course in his life.

Edited July 26, 2014 by gavagai

[maturin]

Let us consider the legend of Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, mainly because the rich were in power and taxed the poor in such a way that the poor weren't able to feed themselves and their families anymore. Also, the poor were not able to mount an effective defence against trained and armed soldiers.

 

Now, legally, and since everyone in this society agreed on property being generally a personal thing, Robin Hood was certainly wrong in doing what he did. But from a moral standpoint many, I included, would argue that he was right in what he did, he corrected the unjust law imposed upon those that were not able to defend themselves against the lawmakers.

 

And I accuse the people who entirely justify Robin Hood's actions of being sloppy moralists with an opportunistic bent.

 

The Robin Hood example is hopelessly muddled because it dives head first into social science, but at the same time you can approach it from a simple perspective.

 

Certainly the system of class hierarchy and excessive taxation was unjust. But that does not entirely excuse Robin Hood's violent, often lethal efforts to continue his banditry. It is simply a mitigating factor. The moralist may forgive and minimize Robin Hood's crimes against the rich, many of whom must also have been decent people with no real complicity in Prince John's tax policy (legal minors such as women and children, etc), and who must have suffered in non-monetary ways from the constant threat of attack. And I don't think I have to point out that much of Robin Hood's support stems from an approval or revenge, of the unjust getting their just desserts. And that is far from a moral judgment.

 

And if you look into the usual themes of the Robin Hood legend, you will see that I am right. Robin is always described as an outlaw, underscoring the transgressive nature of his actions. Far from stubbornly insisting that his actions were completely just, the audience of Robin Hood tales relishes in the heroic context that ALLOWS Robin to commit crimes and escape moral censure. This is the dynamic that I have already brought up. When people point to situations where they say violence is moral, they are acting out of a rebellious desire to trespass against moral laws and be exonerated by circumstance.

 

Certainly, at the end of the day, Robin Hood is far less moral and less free of sin than someone who merely raised funds for the poor in a way that did not require violence and theft.

 

As for the apple example. Yes one might consider it his property, but if he is in a society that considers everything common property, then he would be wrong doing so, he would be going against the general consent of that society. Therefore he might consider it stealing, but by the rules of that society it would not be stealing. That person might even be reprimanded for not sharing the apple and considering it his personal property.

As I said, it is the definition of stealing that is at question here, not the morality of stealing itself.

And again you bring in the thorny questions of the individual vs society. But I would say that a perfectly moral society would not contradict the personal values of any of its members, and incorporate consent at all levels of interpersonal relations. At the same time, a society does have some limited right to impress duties and moral standards on its members. You are bringing up a potential contradiction in morals stemming from a societal dispute.

 

If Tasmanian devils would be sentient enough to develop concepts of right and wrong, then you might find for them that it is acceptable for only the strongest to survive, as female devils give live birth to more infants than she can feed and therefore competition for the zits giving milk is fierce. Roughly 60% of the littler will not survive this. This, again, might then go into property considerations, if someone is able to conquer property from someone else, because he is stronger, then it would be possible that it is not considered theft. If someone was weaker and just slyly taking it, he might be considered a thief.

Thankfully, philosophy only has to deal with one sentient species at the moment.

[Dun_Aenghus]

Interesting discussion - I personally think a lot of this has to do with the environment one is raised in, parents etc. In my corner of Ireland, we're seeing a lot more crime (petty stealing), mainly because the parents don't give a damn and young people are growing up with no sense of morality. Not sure how it is in the U.S. but I guess some places are worse than others: http://www.statista.com/statistics/232559/motor-vehicle-thefts-reported-in-the-us-by-state/

[BRooDJeRo]

Where is Nietzsche when you need to really drop a hand grenade on the forum discussion?

 

"Take yourself out of the equation"?

[Exorcet]

stealing bread when you are hungry (and can't afford to buy it) is not always wrong... stealing bread from the hungry is wrong,

I don't see why being hungry would let you get away with immoral acts. Someone irresponsible enough to repeatedly go broke (or maybe crafty enough) and then use it as an excuse to live off other people isn't right.

 

In the case where it's an unfortunate accident, for the theft to be right, it would mean that other people are required to give up their things for the sake of someone in need. While I would strive to do that, I don't see how that is a moral requirement.

 

stealing from the rich is not wrong... the comment saying "stealing bread is wrong because someone else will be hungry"

My point was not to illustrate that stealing bread was wrong because it would make someone hungry, but to point out that the hungry person stealing bread can be as much an act of greed as anything else.

 

 

 

Now, legally, and since everyone in this society agreed on property being generally a personal thing, Robin Hood was certainly wrong in doing what he did. But from a moral standpoint many, I included, would argue that he was right in what he did, he corrected the unjust law imposed upon those that were not able to defend themselves against the lawmakers.

I think that Robin's Hood actions could be perfectly justified if it was aimed at the wrong doers. Labeling the rich as the bad guys and taking from them is wrong. The people at fault would be the ones oppressing the poor. The poor don't deserve what they don't have just because they are poor, but they also don't deserve to be subject to anyone else.

 

It is a bit of what, in D&D terms (other nerds might know that), is considered a Chaotic Good character, a character that does what is morally right, but not necessarily while abiding the law or while even outright breaking it.

Morally good and law are completely distinct, so there is no problem per-say with breaking the law and being a perfect moral being.

 

 

 

If Tasmanian devils would be sentient enough to develop concepts of right and wrong, then you might find for them that it is acceptable for only the strongest to survive, as female devils give live birth to more infants than she can feed and therefore competition for the zits giving milk is fierce. Roughly 60% of the littler will not survive this. This, again, might then go into property considerations, if someone is able to conquer property from someone else, because he is stronger, then it would be possible that it is not considered theft. If someone was weaker and just slyly taking it, he might be considered a thief.

I completely agree that this is possible. If it did happen though I'd say that the culture of the devils was morally wrong. The strongest surviving doesn't make any real sense, why does being stronger entitle you to anything? It makes it easier to throw around your will, but it doesn't make you right.

 

 

Bottom line, this is a subject that we humans will struggle with for, if we live that long, millenia to come and a subject that will always be changing. It is certainly easier talking about the physical properties of a stone.

Maybe, maybe not. It might be that we're at a "pre-enlightment" stage with morals as we were with science. Someone might come along and solve the issue and when everyone realizes it's right, they might follow it. I think that's as real a possibility as endless arguing.

 

The best chance to find the real answer, I think, involves throwing away culture and tradition (which is mostly a combination of evolution, desire to survive, and 'just because') when it comes to morality.