Who said right?

N

Non-Logical-Idea-Guy

Fat people can't smile.
Registered Senior Member
Lets say you robbed someone and you were told robbing was wrong. who said it was wrong, surely right and wrong is just an illusion created by man itself.

Please post your thoughts

Louis O'Sullivan

(I didnt actually rob someone ;) )
 
if you pay the shipping I can send you a book about ethics and morality.
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
;) but seriously who said this was right and this was wrong?
Click to expand...

"Who" actually said it doesn't matter. The principle involved is all that counts. When you do anything that violates someone else's ownership, safety, etc., etc., then you have done wrong. Just as simple as that and I can't see why you're even questioning it.
 
Yes, its a matter of what is best for our species, in an evolutionary sense. It's probably right to say that robbing someone is wrong, but maybe it's a question of where one path leads us as a species as opposed to the other path. It's not bad to question what you have been taught is right and wrong. Maybe more murder and fewer people will be better for the species as a whole when you think about limited resources on this planet, resources that are being consumed and not replenished at an astounding rate. Of course, murder is probably not the best solution to problem. Do we really want 10 billion, 20 billion people on this one planet that we are currently limited to. Limited to for the forseeable future. Is it right to have as many kids as you want, or is it wrong to overpopulate a planet that is quickly being consumed? Question away.
 
Robbing doesn't have to be wrong. Who in here can honestly tell me that an 8 year old kid who is starving to death robbing a filthy rich, fat guy is wrong?

remember what star wars has taught you: only the dark side thinks in absoultes.
lol
 
TheAlphaWolf said:
Robbing doesn't have to be wrong. Who in here can honestly tell me that an 8 year old kid who is starving to death robbing a filthy rich, fat guy is wrong?

remember what star wars has taught you: only the dark side thinks in absoultes.
lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, I liked that too. Kind of why I equate religion with the dark side.
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
wow your right in one aspect but wrong in another.
what is violation?
what is wrong about violation?
Click to expand...
Wrong about what aspect?

Very simple. Taking something that belongs to another is causing that individual harm. Doing harm to another is wrong?

If someone harmed you for no cause, would you consider that "right?"
 
Yeah, I liked that too. Kind of why I equate religion with the dark side.
Click to expand...

well, aren't you thinking in absolutes too? there are hundreds of religions out there, and a lot of religious people don't think in absoultes.
he he he...
 
Yeah, true, but I have a lingering condition called "being raised southern baptist" that I am still trying to find a cure for.
 
Light said:
Wrong about what aspect?

Very simple. Taking something that belongs to another is causing that individual harm. Doing harm to another is wrong?

If someone harmed you for no cause, would you consider that "right?"
Click to expand...

its what defines right and wrong that i want to know
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
its what defines right and wrong that i want to know
Click to expand...

If someone can claim to be a victim and another person will testify that that person has indeed been caused hardship because of the actions of another, then we have agreement that we a) Have a victim and b) Have a perpetrator and c) Have a deficit in the application of justice until the perpetrator is caught and made to give account of their actions.

It will then be up to a jury of 12 to decide whether the perpetrator is indeed guilty of the crime or not based on evidence presented by the prosecution. If a verdict of guilty is given then the judge will decide the sentence and will take into account any mitigating circumstances. It may be that a jury conceeds a crime has taken place but lacks enough evidence to convict the alleged perpetrator facing trial in which case the judge will have to call the alledged perpetrator 'innocent' irrespective of whether they actually did commit the crime or not.

This is all pretty basic stuff really.

peace

c20
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
so society decides write and wrong?
Click to expand...

I hate the word 'society' because it doesn't exist as a seperate entity and therefore cannot make any decisions by itself. It is made up of you and I and our personal understanding of how we wish to be treated by those we share the Earth's resources with. If I take something that belongs to you and that causes you hardship, you personally have two choices. You can either seek justice for yourself or you can write it off. In either case you have decided that another has caused you hardship. How did it feel to be caused hardship? Did it feel great? Or did it make you feel wronged? You decide.

peace

c20
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
so society decides write and wrong?
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. And it also decides right and wrong, too. ;)

I already gave you the real answer - wrong is when someone causes another harm. And although there's a small bit of variation, it's very interesting to realize that the concept of fair and unfair treatment has been present in every culture in the whole world. You could consider it a very basic principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top