What does 'wrong' mean?

[glaucon]

Interesting thread overall, but misguided in places.

Paying particular attention to Blue_Uk's original question,

In terms of ethical 'right' and 'wrong', how are these terms defined?

James R's explication,

1. subjectivism: Saying something is wrong is no more than a claim that you personally disapprove of it.
2. intersubjectivism: Saying something is wrong is to claim that the community you consider yourself a member of disapproves of it.
3. emotivism: (the yay-boo theory) Saying something is wrong is actually nothing other than barracking against the thing.

is completely correct.

According to Ethical theory these are the possibilities that answer Blue_UK's question. Too many people have responded with their particular theory may be which, while interesting, does not answer the question.

It's also important to recognize that there is a difference between the terms 'moral' and 'ethical', as the latter involves a codification implicitly, while the former does not.

p.s. Just a quibble but, Theoryofrelativity, while I agree with your sentiment, people do not evolve, a species does.

 

[Absane]

Disagree

Example: late abortion:

If the majority were to decide it's acceptable because they don't want another unwanted baby in their midst and they don't care about the unborn that they have no association with, does the fact the majority give this life no value and allow it's sufferring at death make late abortion 'right?' No..it remains wrong.

You missed the point of the definition. It says nothing about what others think is right or wrong or what they want. The definitions implies that there are "laws" that, given a circumstance, a decision can be right or wrong, regardless of the person.

Like if a woman was raped and got pregnant. Perhaps it is "morally right" for her to get an abortion. In this case, all woman that are raped are morally correct if they seek abortion. BUT only in that case perhaps. Maybe she got drunk and acted irresponsible, yet mentally sound (not crazy), and got pregnant. Perhaps in this case, regardless of a woman meeting the same qualifications (mentally fit if you want) is NOT morally correct if she seeks an abortion.

snippy snip

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Like if a woman was raped and got pregnant. Perhaps it is "morally right" for her to get an abortion. In this case, all woman that are raped are morally correct if they seek abortion. BUT only in that case perhaps. Maybe she got drunk and acted irresponsible, yet mentally sound (not crazy), and got pregnant. Perhaps in this case, regardless of a woman meeting the same qualifications (mentally fit if you want) is NOT morally correct if she seeks an abortion.

re late abortion
Again disagree, who said it was morally right for a woman who is raped to get a late abortion? While I understand the reasons, it is no more morally right to end a late pregnancy that was fathered without consent than it is with consent. The subject of morality is not one of choice it is one of outcome. The choice is to abort or not to abort. The choice is deemed more acceptable and thus tolerated in the 'rape' scenario. But does that make the act of the late abortion morally right because the choice was deemed acceptable?

The outcome regardless of choice is that a near fully developed human baby is being brutally killed, and thus morally wrong.

Society decides what is acceptable, it does not decide what is moral. Individuals do that.

 

[Blue_UK]

The outcome regardless of choice is that a near fully developed human baby is being brutally killed, and thus morally wrong

'Thus wrong' because there was a killing of a human involved. But why is killing humans wrong?

For me,

1. It upsets people.
2. A mutual agreement: I won't do you if you won't do me because we are thinking beings who like to be alive etc. etc.

Certainly, a foetus/baby doesn't really have much to do with the second lot since it doesn't really have the brain capacity to experience the world as even, for example, a small child does. Perhaps not more than a small mammal which we are already OK with wasting.

As for being upset over thinking about it - just don't think about it. Or focus on the fact that the uncomfortable emotions are simply nerves firing. Like getting over the pain of putting disinfectant on the wound. "It shouldn't be done because it hurts to think about it". Well "get over it and grow up" just as a child must over pain stimuli that do not indicate genuine threat.

With these two points in mind abortion, indeed killing in this respect, are not subjectively wrong things. Intersubjectively? That depends on how many people I can persuade!

I tried to persuade a 19 year old friend to have an abortion. She didn't listen and now she's stuck with a 40 year old man and his spawn. (He's her dad's mate).

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

'Thus wrong' because there was a killing of a human involved. But why is killing humans wrong?

No not wrong because killing humans is wrong, morally wrong because a sentient life form is being tortured and brutally killed, it is enduring sufferring and pain, and this regardless of species, is morally wrong.

If you have to ask yourself why this is morally wrong, then you are one of those that has an underdeveloped sense of conscience and empathy and you must thus entrust someone else with a higher developed sense of moral values to guide your actions.

Why do we have 'morals'. It is essential for the survival of the species. If we never gave a damn about fellow man, we'd fail to protect and defend each other in times of conflict. You could therefore say it is a genetic requirement that we devise a moral code. They will no doubt in the future be able to locate the 'morality' gene and no doubt find an absence of it in some! You perhaps?

 

[Blue_UK]

I have fully understood why we have such emotions/motivations ever since I have pondered behavioural evolution.

I do not have to ask myself why it is 'wrong'. I do posses those feelings. However, in addition to possessing those feelings I am also aware that they are just that - signals. Here I would re-iterate my above post if it were not so easily available.

[moving chunk to new post]

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I have fully understood why we have such emotions/motivations ever since I have pondered behavioural evolution.

I do not have to ask myself why it is 'wrong'. I do posses those feelings. However, in addition to possessing those feelings I am also aware that they are just that - signals. Here I would re-iterate my above post if it were not so easily available.

If you wish to reduce everything to 'signals' neurons firing whatever, then there is no point even debating the point is there as that is just more neurons firing.

You say you have these 'feelings' and I guess with your reduction of everything to 'signals' thus try to surpress them. Perhaps this is in you a survival mechanism. Certainly I know very sensitive people who protect themselves from emotional harm by doing exactly that. Myself included. It's called putting up a metaphorical barrier.

Either way, we need to feel in order to be able to extend a helping hand and guide future generations towards actions that will enable them to continue the species not destroy it. Possessing a sense of morality should not therefore be reduced at will to 'signals' and thus be ignored. The 'signals' are there to 'signal' a response, not to remove one.

 

[Blue_UK]

Also, with regard to your comment about the survival value of such morals, it is important to remember that our genetic behavioural traits (or any trait that is a ramification of some other trait(s) that genetics are responcible for) have a certain 'overlap'. For example, shit smellls bad. This has a cascade of influences that ultimately benefits our health. However, it is possible that there may be instances where overcoming the smell from time to time would be beneficial to us. For example if a fruit with healing properties had by mischance such a smell. You can see where I'm going with this.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Also, with regard to your comment about the survival value of such morals, it is important to remember that our genetic behavioural traits (or any trait that is a ramification of some other trait(s) that genetics are responcible for) have a certain 'overlap'. For example, shit smellls bad. This has a cascade of influences that ultimately benefits our health. However, it is possible that there may be instances where overcoming the smell from time to time would be beneficial to us. For example if a fruit with healing properties had by mischance such a smell. You can see where I'm going with this.

No I can't see where you are going with this.

1) As with all smells we smell them initially as a notification they are there and then we can not smell them after just a short while, very few smells persist.
2) It's unlikely something beneficial to us would smell bad as nature is very clever at promoting what is good and bad for us.
3) How does any of this relate to moral values?

 

[Blue_UK]

A negative smell was just one example. Here is a quick diagram - I hope this doesn't smell too much like bullshit to you!



The bar represents things in the world. Red ones are bad for us. Green ones are good.

Over the top of this bar I've put a shady region. This shady region is an emotion with repells us from whatever is under it. I am suggesting that many, if not most, emotions not only bar us from genuine threats but also from unusual things that are good but trigger the negative responce from the emotion.

After all... how is an emotion going to be implemented into the physical hardware of our brain? Of course it's going to involve interpretation of our senses - sometimes this is going to be accurate and sometimes not.

It relates to moral issues because, as you clearly agree, emotions play an important part in our morality.