Is there such a thing as right or wrong?

[BjornP]

And I'm not talking about law, but wether you personally believe in any sort of either universal right or wrong.

In the poll, "a question of association" refers to something similar to the "all a question of interpretation" idea, but completely bypasses the notion of right and wrong as irrelevant. Right is whatever benefits the group or a specific individual, wrongs are whatever harms or threatens it or them. Anyway, indulge my curiousity, if you please.

[Montegriffo]

Hope so or else pub quizzes are meaningless.

[BjornP]

Hope so or else pub quizzes are meaningless.

I meant right and wrong in the moral, ethical and social sense. Not facts vs non facts. But I did have postmodernism in mind when I made the "everything is interpretation", which in the most absurd, extreme cases also calls natural science into question. The poll option wasn't meant to represent the most extreme interpretation, though, so if one chooses the "interpretation" option it's not meant to represent that unless someone explicitly stated so .

[Martin Hash]

“Morals are for churches.” - me

But science and math certainly have right & wrong.

[heydaralon]

I hope there is. Every civilization had its own moral code of some kind. However, there are things I view as universally wrong such as pederasty or slavery that many civilizations practiced and some practice today. If you are attempting to determine whether right and wrong are real things, you would have some difficulty proving it by looking at other/past civilizations from history. Philosophy is also a poor guide in many ways, as they are shaped by their culture and own contemporary opinions. I think you need a sort of religion to settle this question, even if it only settles it on a personal level for you. That is the only thing that makes sense for me.

[Speaker to Animals]

2+2=4


If you believe that statement refers to a real (in the philosophical sense, real means exists objectively) truth, then you cannot I'm ediately discount moral realism, since both truths derive from logic, and both really amount to a kind of logical realism.

You could probably find some lost tribe of dindus who believe 2+2=3, but that does not mean mathematical truth is relative.

[heydaralon]

2+2=4


If you believe that statement refers to a real (in the philosophical sense, real means exists objectively) truth, then you cannot I'm ediately discount moral realism, since both truths derive from logic, and both really amount to a kind of logical realism.

You could probably find some lost tribe of dindus who believe 2+2=3, but that does not mean mathematical truth is relative.

I'm not trying to make a Paul Feyerabend type argument that science and math are relative and based on perspective. However, I think it gets less certain when you get into morality.

Here's an extreme example: There is a autobiographical book written by a Jewish guy named Roman Frister who was in the camps. Every morning at roll call, each inmate had to wear a hat. Those who didn't were shot. A male guard raped Frister, then stole his cap. The guard knew that Frister would be shot in the morning and the evidence for the rape would disappear. So Frister waited until another prisoner went to sleep, and stole his cap. In the morning at roll call, the prisoner without a cap was taken from the group and shot from behind at the base of the skull.

Do you think what Frister did was right? What was the most moral thing for him to do in that situation?

You would not find anyone on this forum who would defend child rape or mass shooting, but there are plenty of other things we make 200+ pages fighting fiercely about, from abortion, taxation, government programs and charity, hate speech, homosexuality etc. I could make a pretty good system of morality that would make perfect sense for me, but I would be hard pressed to convince even a single other person on this forum to fully agree with.

[TheReal_ND]

There is only service to the God Emporer.

Please modify your poll.

[Speaker to Animals]

2+2=4


If you believe that statement refers to a real (in the philosophical sense, real means exists objectively) truth, then you cannot I'm ediately discount moral realism, since both truths derive from logic, and both really amount to a kind of logical realism.

You could probably find some lost tribe of dindus who believe 2+2=3, but that does not mean mathematical truth is relative.

I'm not trying to make a Paul Feyerabend type argument that science and math are relative and based on perspective. However, I think it gets less certain when you get into morality.

Here's an extreme example: There is a autobiographical book written by a Jewish guy named Roman Frister who was in the camps. Every morning at roll call, each inmate had to wear a hat. Those who didn't were shot. A male guard raped Frister, then stole his cap. The guard knew that Frister would be shot in the morning and the evidence for the rape would disappear. So Frister waited until another prisoner went to sleep, and stole his cap. In the morning at roll call, the prisoner without a cap was taken from the group and shot from behind at the base of the skull.

Do you think what Frister did was right? What was the most moral thing for him to do in that situation?

You would not find anyone on this forum who would defend child rape or mass shooting, but there are plenty of other things we make 200+ pages fighting fiercely about, from abortion, taxation, government programs and charity, hate speech, homosexuality etc. I could make a pretty good system of morality that would make perfect sense for me, but I would be hard pressed to convince even a single other person on this forum to fully agree with.

Under no system of ethics I know of was what he did right.

Most systems can broadly be categorized as utilitarian, rule-based, or hybrid. A utilitarian line of argumentation needs to show he maximized good and minimized evil. He did not. He merely shifted the cost of evil to another person. In the traditional rule-based system derived by applying reason to human nature, he committed murder himself, which is immoral.

The usual line of attack against moral realism is to demonstrate where utilitarianism and rule ethics contradict one another, and imply there can be no objective morals because the two moral systems do not even agree.

But to that I would point out this argument, though fallacious, would if true undermine even science itself, since we always find different models contradicting one another, and we assume our current model will someday be contradicted, but we do not therefore assume it impossible that objective reality does not exist.

[heydaralon]

2+2=4


If you believe that statement refers to a real (in the philosophical sense, real means exists objectively) truth, then you cannot I'm ediately discount moral realism, since both truths derive from logic, and both really amount to a kind of logical realism.

You could probably find some lost tribe of dindus who believe 2+2=3, but that does not mean mathematical truth is relative.

I'm not trying to make a Paul Feyerabend type argument that science and math are relative and based on perspective. However, I think it gets less certain when you get into morality.

Here's an extreme example: There is a autobiographical book written by a Jewish guy named Roman Frister who was in the camps. Every morning at roll call, each inmate had to wear a hat. Those who didn't were shot. A male guard raped Frister, then stole his cap. The guard knew that Frister would be shot in the morning and the evidence for the rape would disappear. So Frister waited until another prisoner went to sleep, and stole his cap. In the morning at roll call, the prisoner without a cap was taken from the group and shot from behind at the base of the skull.

Do you think what Frister did was right? What was the most moral thing for him to do in that situation?

You would not find anyone on this forum who would defend child rape or mass shooting, but there are plenty of other things we make 200+ pages fighting fiercely about, from abortion, taxation, government programs and charity, hate speech, homosexuality etc. I could make a pretty good system of morality that would make perfect sense for me, but I would be hard pressed to convince even a single other person on this forum to fully agree with.

Under no system of ethics I know of was what he did right.

Most systems can broadly be categorized as utilitarian, rule-based, or hybrid. A utilitarian line of argumentation needs to show he maximized good and minimized evil. He did not. He merely shifted the cost of evil to another person. In the traditional rule-based system derived by applying reason to human nature, he committed murder himself, which is immoral.

The usual line of attack against moral realism is to demonstrate where utilitarianism and rule ethics contradict one another, and imply there can be no objective morals because the two moral systems do not even agree.

But to that I would point out this argument, though fallacious, would if true undermine even science itself, since we always find different models contradicting one another, and we assume our current model will someday be contradicted, but we do not therefore assume it impossible that objective reality does not exist.

All good points, but consider this:

How do we determine what is good and what is evil, much less minimize one and maximize the other? Sometimes, evil actions lead to good in the future, and war crimes can cruelty can lead to long periods of peace. Since present morality can lead to bad outcomes in the future, does that make it a net evil overall? If a member of organized crime embezzled and extorted so that his children would be able to get a great education and live an honest life helping others, does the evil outweigh the good? In many belief systems, good and bad are not separate, they are simply reinforcing eachother.

Also how do we view intent? If I attempt to do something good, but it ends up leading to a future horror show, does my intent matter and alleviate some of the blame? Even very spiritually and academically educated Christians debate this sort of thing. In the past, I read that Jansenists assigned morality to action and duty, whereas the Jesuits argued that intentions were of more important to determining right and wrong. I have no good answers, I just do not believe that you assign empirical numbers and data to something as vague as right and wrong. However, I still have very strong opinions on what I think is right.