right and wrong

[Cavernio]

Re: right and wrong

godamnit, I lost a mammoth post....

Sigh, here's the basics. Human derived concepts are by necessity unfactual, nor are they the opposite. You cannot prove that just because something is a concept from our head that it means it is false.

If people didn't believe their own version of morality were factual, or at least close to factual, then morality wouln't exist and everything would be like the comic suggests.
So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

My concept of morality is not refuted by you saying that there is disagreement between individual concepts of what is right or wrong when they are applied; I went over that already.

If everyone can agree that some acts are always wrong or always right, for example, randomly stabbing someone is wrong, there's an implication that there indeed exists a factual morality. No, this is not proof, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that morality is purely individual. It clearly has the capacity for universality.

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.

And once more, I am a she.

[devonin]

Re: right and wrong

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.

Or what you were driving at was unclear to him, I restated it in a way that he understood, and he thanked me for making it so he understood what you were saying. I don't see why you need to take that personally or treat it like some sort of dismissal or judgement of you.

[Cavernio]

Re: right and wrong

He thanked you for being unbiased, not just for giving a good explanation, while meanwhile critisizing me for being biased the previous post. Anyways...

The only thing that we have to measure how factual an idea that is, at least on the surface, derived within people, is how much agreement there is among everyone. eg: If I were to think that a person in a vegetative state is intelligent (intelligence being the human derived idea), then I would be false. Why? Because they're the opposite of intelligent. As defined by individuals. It is not a universal law, but it can still be wrong even though we only have other humans to tell us it is wrong.
Do you agree ddrxero?
Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

The only way morality can come to an agreement is by considering everyone's views and all the facts and then logically churning out an answer as to how moral the action was. If you are not doing this, then there's all sorts of opportunity to specifically be going against someone's morals, which is specifically immoral. I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

[devonin]

Re: right and wrong

Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

It doesn't. There's actually just as much disagreement over a definition of intelligent and how to apply it to people as there is over a definition of moral and how to apply it to actions.

You think someone in a vegetative state is not intelligent. People who feel that same way and want to end the life of someone in that state have had to contend with the Supreme Court of the United States in legal battles with doctors, family members etc who absolutely do NOT agree with your opinion as stated above.

Agreement among people is how you generate a social contract, a specific form of moral code built around subjugating your own personal desires and feelings to devise a system as agreeable as possible to as many people as possible. That doesn't establish objective rightness or wrongness, it actually generally tends to assume no such thing is possible.

Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?

[ddrxero64]

Re: right and wrong

So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality.

And I can't agree with that because I'd prefer you define what about this person (in their vegetative state) is intelligent. Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain.

I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Edit: Apologies Ms.Cavernio, nowhere was it specified you were a woman, and I'm generally more used to seeing guys in this forum and in stepmania communities. Now I know.

Edit 2: I actually want to point out that you're taking the word bias in a negative connotation. I can be biased without being negative. I could say DDR is the best game out there, but only because I never played much of any other rhythm game and I had lots of fun with DDR in the past. That's being biased, but I'm not being negative toward any other specific game.

So I can say you're biased and criticize you for it, but criticism isn't a mean thing. Criticism is usually used in a negative context so I'm going to guess that's the way you're taking it, but think of my posts as constructive criticism, not unproductive criticism. That's the way I intend it when I make them.

[Cavernio]

Re: right and wrong

I didn't mean intelligent as in 'has some intelligence' devonin, but intelligent as in 'hey, that person's smart!' for the vegetative state example, not to be confused with an argument that you seem to be implying that 'intelligence=consciousness', which is another thing. Like, society's not going to be giving any 'intelligence' prizes to the person in a vegetative state.

Also, the acknowledgment of the inability to appease everyone, again, doesn't go against what I've said. To say that it is unknown what is best or worst doesn't mean that the idea that 'I know what is good/bad for me, bad is wrong good is right, therefore I have knowledge of what is good/bad for you, therefore bad for you is wrong and good for you is right' is invalid.

ddrxero: "Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain."

The fact that intelligence is subjective yet seems to have some sort of measurable outside force is in fact key to my argument. I agree, a vegetative person is not intelligent because they don't have bain activity (assuming they don't have any that is, which may notbe the case for some vegetative individuals given the most recent studies, but anyways...) The fact is, a person can be happy or sad, and that can be something measurable either through hard science like measuring pleasure centers in the brain. One's happiness or sadness or pain or pleasure is as close to a physically measurable entitiy as heat. Morality is based on how we treat others, and we have hard measures of those people's pleasure. If we treat morality as logically as intelligence, then we end up trying to please everyone as best we can. So again, I ask you, how is this different from our totally subjective, yet agreed upon, definition of intelligence?
If I go out and randomly kill someone on the street right now, the fact that no one would could possibly see that as right, that it will be viewed as wrong by anyone who possesses morality, means something about morality and human-made concepts in general too.
The fact that if 2 people whose morals disagree, yet a 3rd party can come in and mediate, like a judge, strongly implies that there is some sort of tacit societal agreement about what is right and wrong which is beyond what any 1 individual thinks. The only logical step for someone who's trying to be as moral as possible is, therefore, to be as close to that 3rd party as possible. And the only agreement that we can all possibly have about morals IS in regards to measures of hurt/happy or pain/pleasure (whatever you want to call them), because they ARE the only measurable things. My version, THE version of morality we all share, is very intentionally defined by what is measurable and known.

Unless you think morality is actually disconnected from how an individual treats others, in which case my argument is totally invalid.

Again, the reality that we may never know what is best or worst is irrelevant. I am arguing against people who are taking the idea of 'it's unknown what is bad or good' to mean that it is therefore valid to make up right and wrong. For instance, arguments like 'it is unnatural' to imply that something is wrong is NOT moral because it is not based off of 'good' and 'bad' which people experience.

me: "So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero. "
ddrexo: "Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality."

Ahhahha, but that IS the topic, is it not? Rather, the topic is that there exists a 'factual' morality, and that if your morals aren't attemping to coincide with that 'factual' morality, then your morals are not only wrong, they are false. (I'm not perfect enough to know what is factually right or wrong, even if I were to spend my entire life trying to learn what is or isn't.) Besides which, you took my sentence as a separate entity from the sentences before. The point I was trying to make is that if I believe in something as moral, then by definition, I must think it is not only right but 'factually right' or 'true', or else it is not really a moral, it's just a thing I think. Which means that if anyone's morals disagree with anyone else's, they can't both be right. But people do still try and resolve moral disagreements, and the only way you can DO that is by tapping into yet another morality, one which takes into consideration what I think is right and the other party thinks is right, as well as the moral/immoral actions and who they affect, etc. That is the morality that is common, and that is the morality that stems from the most basic moral values of hurt/helping others, which are in turn based on the facts that people experience desirable and undesirable things.

"Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?"
No, because we both agree that everyone's fundamental morals are the same, that hurting yourself and others is wrong and 'happying' them is right. 'Respecting your opinion' is defintitely involved in this, but only because not acknowledging your opinion causes hurt. (Well, to make it more complicated we can't know what is going to be best for everyone you must have as much knowledge as possible so it is also steeped in the fact that I must think about and consider your opinion.) Your argument is valid only if there is no such thing for social agreement for morals, which isn't the case.

And idc about you not knowing that I wasn't female ddrxero, but tsk tsk to devonin because I'm 99% sure he's posted in threads that I've said it in before. That said, you should try and not assume everyone you are talking to of unknown gender is male, regardless of the site's propensity for males. The view to consider people as males who are not talking about something outside the realm of a female-viewed activity is far-reaching in our society and is annoying. How would you like to be considered a woman by default?

[fido123]

Re: right and wrong

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but some opinions are shit. If an opinion is uneducated and not based off of anything rational or factual that opinion is nothing but garbage for both the person holding it and everybody else. Nothing urks me more when I'm having a civil debate with somebody and they get all defensive and pull that line when their opinion is based on faith, wishful thinking, or more times than not stubborness.

[Squares, the Cube]

Re: right and wrong

I can't quite see where the debate is anymore.

It isn't "right" to make people happy. It's optional. The world isn't some big wall of white and black. There's this huge gray area in which most people live. The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

Edit: And what I mean about optional is-

If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

[Cavernio]

Re: right and wrong

The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

But I never said that moral answers are the summation of 'opinions', but of experience. (Not experience as in 'I have experience playing games', but rather the experience OF playing games.) My personal experience is not an opinion, it can exist outside of what I think, as are other's experiences. That should be clear from the very first post. Opinion is also an experience (I think something, therefore I experience it), but opinion is not static, it can be changed, and yes, it should be considered as experience for the purposes of determining what is right and wrong, along with the knowledge that opinion isn't static, and that changing someone's opinion may in fact be the most moral solution to something, rather than ruling 'in favor' of one person or another. However, there exists some experience that cannot be changed, and by saying 'morality is totally an individual opinion', does not account for that experience.

It seems that some people are having a hard time separating these two ideas. I'm not sure why.

If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

If you make someone feel completely indifferent it is more right than hurting them and less right than making them feel happy...Must I really spell that out to you? Must it be assumed that since I did not use that specific example, that I have not considered it? For instance, must it be assumed that I have not considered the vast array of human emotions and experiences, which may be considered both good and bad at the same time by an individual, simply because I have not added that particular caveat to an argument of mine??? Well let me spell it out for you; the individual experiencing both of these is the judge. If they are unsure about themselves, then it is neither wrong nor right, and lies exactly between the two.

[Squares, the Cube]

Re: right and wrong

I'm understanding things a bit more than I did yesterday.

You disagree with the statement:

"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this too. And I think the statement is very much wrong. Many things can be deemed right and wrong without being subjective or opinionated. I'd agree with this statement:

Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" can be a SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

Though to my knowledge, only what's considered factual is the exception. I can't say killing someone is morally wrong because in some cases, I can see why killing someone could be right. As opinions are taken in, subjectivity becomes more apparent.

Going back to the logical side of things. Facts! I wouldn't say that in my opinion, atoms exist. Regardless my opinion, atoms exist. When it comes to facts, opinions are irrelevant. Some people treat science as if it's a religion. They choose not to believe in science due to personal experiences and the word of mouth of others. In their opinion, science is wrong and evil. We know science is not a religion, but a self-correcting process that explains the natural world. Some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, even though mountains of evidence easily disputes it. If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you are WRONG, and that is neither subjective or opinionated. The earth IS about 4.5 billion years old.

On Morality (Google search definition. Seems about right though)

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

I find morality to be subjective. Easiest example is murder. It's definitely not objective. If a woman is being raped and she somehow manages to kill her attacker, I don't see anything wrong here. But that's just my opinion and only reflects on its subjectivity.

[devonin]

Re: right and wrong

I disagree with this too. And I think the statement is very much wrong.

The use of "right" and "wrong" in that example is in the context of morality, not the context of "Correct" and "Incorrect" so since that removes your "Facts are right" thing...do you still disagree with that statement?

Which things do you think -are- "right" or "wrong" then where it is NOT subjective?

[Squares, the Cube]

Re: right and wrong

I said morality was subjective. It's definitely not objective and there is no in between. The moment something isn't ALWAYS objective, then it's subjective. I can see an infinite amount of scenarios in my head where murder and theft can be justified. I believe that as conditions change, so should the rules.

[stargroup100]

Re: right and wrong

off-track: So...stargroup's clumping all 'macro' discussions for any number of topics into a subtype that he feels shouldn't be talked about in no way, shape or form uses the same sort of meta-thinking that the comic itself was against, while it is somehow valid to be so meta when invalidating metaness. Macroness/metaness is how the human mind synthesizes all the fiddly bits of information. Without it we wouldn't have intelligence, we wouldn't have any understanding of a whole of any type. We wouldn't even see ourselves as individuals.
(I'm also pretty sure I'm not a very mentally healthy person.)

Can someone explain this better? I'm not following.

[Reincarnate]

Re: right and wrong

I figure this is off-topic enough to start another thread.

Quote from RubiedCross:
"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this statement. Happiness is good. Hurt is bad. It is right to make people happy. It is wrong to hurt people. Every moral question should revolve around this, and therefore all subjectiveness revolving around right and wrong should come from differences in opinion regarding creating more happiness and less hurt.
People who measure morality in a different way than this are wrong unless someone convinces me otherwise.

Right and wrong ARE subjective and opinionated. Most will agree that hurt is bad and happiness is good, but only because this is typically defined by definition. The question is what's considered bad vs. what's considered good.

Not everyone will hold the same opinions. However, morality comes from societal optima. If we, for instance, didn't think killing was a big deal, we wouldn't be here. The societies that survive are the ones that adopt morals conducive to their existence and stability. In other words, natural selection.

It's not so easy as "what will create the most happiness and less hurt." This is like saying "It's easy to run a company -- just raise your revenues and lower your costs!"

[RubiedCross]

Re: right and wrong

Opinion
This is where you make a statement that is not - I repeat, IS NOT - based on fact or reason. Opinions are subjective. They CAN NOT be proved or dispproven, because there is no definitive evidence. The example fido used is NOT an opinion; he made a statement that can be proven or dispproven. I will give an example of a statement.

Ex. "I find the color blue a very beautiful color"

Because I find the color blue beautiful does not mean you'll find it beautiful; that does not mean, however, that you can prove that it is not beautiful. This is an example of subjectivity. Now, this leads to my next point...

RIGHT or WRONG
Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement. Therefore, you can not prove that something is right or wrong. You just can't. You can get every single person in the world to agree that something is "right", but that does not make it right. It's subjective no matter how you look at it. Remember, I'm just defining this, not stating that you cannot state something is right or wrong. You just have to realize that you cannot prove it. You can, however, give reasons and try to persuade someone to agree with you.

This is a bigger portion of what I was talking about when I was being quoted in the OP. I was talking about morality versus fact. I was talking about right and wrong based on morality, as opposed to correct and incorrect based on science/fact. Those are the definitions I was trying to make clear in what we were discussing.

I read through this entire thread, and find myself unconvinced because a lot of it seems to hop all over the place and is unclear or not completed stated at times. I admit, I skimmed over some parts, but I think I have enough of a grasp to talk to Cavernio and ask some questions.

Cavernio: You are attempting to persuade us that there is a universal, factual moral code. Your reason for saying this is that people, in order to have morals, must believe they are factually correct (e.g. Christians would believe that the factual moral code that is universally correct would be the Bible and what it contains). I find this, even though it may be a fallacy-like argument, to seem to make sense. People wouldn't hold themselves to morals unless they believed they were true. However, it just seems that society it what shapes this more than you think. If a person were brought up in a society where survival of the fittest was the only way to survive, wouldn't people believe it's morally correct to kill those who are weaker than you? They would believe this. To them, they would be approaching what is truly moral. So, would society be a confounding variable? Because of this, I'd like to bring up a clarification that seems to make sense to me.

What does "fact" mean?
Facts are something known to be true. How do we know that they are true, though? This may or may not be wrong, but I would consider facts to be observations that are true outside of observation. Gravity would still be present if there was absolutely no life to observe it (sorry if this leads into the "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear..." situation, it's a different topic and may or may no be discussed at a different time. I am assuming, knowing nothing about the logic behind that questions argument, it would still make a noise, since noise is just the vibration of waves in the air. Even though we can't perceive it, the waves would still be changed).

Now, let's look at what you are trying to prove, or approach.

There is a factual moral standing.
You are trying to say there is a factual, objective truth to morality that we try to approach by forming our own, similar morals. However, you made a statement about your stance that seems to contradict how I understand facts

"Unless you think morality is actually disconnected from how an individual treats others, in which case my argument is totally invalid."

If a fact is something that occurs outside of observation, how could a potentially "factual" morality exist if you don't consider morality as disconnected from how individuals treat others?

Please approach and correct my argument with any fallacies you may see, but that is how I understand it after reading through this thread, and why I would stand by my statement that "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective no matter what (However, I do believe there is a "truthful, factual morality". I cannot prove it, though, because I understand that it's impossible. That is the beauty of it, though. I can't prove it. While I would hope people approach it through learning, I believe the capacity to prove it is outside of our grasp, while the capacity to approach it and find truth [i.e. revelation, if you look at the original meaning of the word, as opposed to "truth" meaning "fact"] is definitely present. I attempt to use logic in most of my arguments, understanding that sometimes what I may try to describe is different from what I want to describe. While I may want to prove to people that I'm right about something, I understand that being right is subjective. Therefore, I change my approach and make my argument within the realms of logic. Of course I'll make mistakes, as I'm sure there are some in here, so I guess you could take this long post script as a sort of disclaimer to what I state in this post. I have an annoying habit of doing this. I'll stop now. Maybe)