Right and Wrong

[Darknezz]

Are right and wrong clearly definable? Is there a clear line drawn where they end and begin?

Of course not. Right and wrong are perspectives. However, how are we supposed to judge whether something is right or wrong? I think we can all agree that certain things, such as cold-blooded murder, are simply wrong, while helping each other is right. But what drives these definitions? Is it simply the only way that society has found that it can function, and so drills these ideas into us, or is it some primal instinct that tells us where to draw the line? And what happens when the line is obscured by things like murder in self-defense, or a charity taking money from an otherwise shady organization?

When the line becomes obscure, how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? I've heard people say that it is never right to take someone's life, but what of someone like Hitler? Would it be right to take his life? And then there are people who say that taking a life is completely right, in special cases. But what defines those special cases? What makes taking a life right?

I'm not sure it's possible to draw a line that everyone will agree with, without a certain amount of brain washing.

However, when the line between right and wrong is obscured, how can we decide which is just? Because the law says so? Because our instincts say it is? What can ultimately decide whether someone is right or wrong?

I say that it is entirely up to the individual. Until such a time as we can say that a person is beyond their own right to judge for themselves, such as Hitler for his murders or as a clinically insane patient, I believe that an individual can go by whatever means to decide what is right and what is wrong.

But this begs the question, what makes one unable to judge for themselves? Mental instability? The magnitude of their crimes? External influence? We require a way to judge whether one may judge others. How does that work?

It would seem that creating a clear right and wrong judgment is impossible. Can anyone give a suitable form of viewing right and wrong, or are we to leave these out of the equation and go on pure instinct to say that this person should die for reason ex?

[shilohdegreat]

May 19, 2009 4:31:24 GMT -5 Darknezz said:

I think we can all agree that certain things, such as cold-blooded murder, are simply wrong, while helping each other is right.

Isn't that an objective morality? Doesn't that answer your own question? What defines right and wrong is situational. If actions are made with a negative outcome, then it is wrong (for example, cold-blooded murder). And anything that is made with a positive outcome is right (for example, saving your best friend from drowning). You contradict yourself when you say there is no objective definition, yet admit that certain actions are objectively definable. Of course, it's up to the individual to distinguish between the difference, but that doesn't mean that an objective right and wrong does not exist. And if someone is confused with the difference, they have laws and ethics to persuade them.

I say yes, there is right and wrong, and it can be objective. It is objectified by laws and ethics, which were made for the purpose of distinguishing the line between the two.

[Wednesday_R]

May 19, 2009 8:32:38 GMT -5 shilohdegreat said:

May 19, 2009 4:31:24 GMT -5 Darknezz said:

I think we can all agree that certain things, such as cold-blooded murder, are simply wrong, while helping each other is right.

Isn't that an objective morality? Doesn't that answer your own question? What defines right and wrong is situational. If actions are made with a negative outcome, then it is wrong (for example, cold-blooded murder). And anything that is made with a positive outcome is right (for example, saving your best friend from drowning). You contradict yourself when you say there is no objective definition, yet admit that certain actions are objectively definable. Of course, it's up to the individual to distinguish between the difference, but that doesn't mean that an objective right and wrong does not exist. And if someone is confused with the difference, they have laws and ethics to persuade them.

I say yes, there is right and wrong, and it can be objective. It is objectified by laws and ethics, which were made for the purpose of distinguishing the line between the two.

Summed that up far better than I possibly could have.

[shikacaah]

When speaking of Ethics, a wrongful act is usually defined by it being an act that would harm another or others. In some shape or form. However, at times individuals may be forced to decide between the "lesser of two evils" which is merely a choice on which one of the two will have the least reppercussions.

Newton teaches us that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Something most legal systems seem to abide by. Thereby, a wrongful act in reference to the law is merely an act that breaks that law.

However individuals must realize that the origins of law are for the sake of maintaining order and stability. Not just to have people "get what they deserve" thereby we must always be open minded with the choices we make.

Due to the constant manipulation all human beings suffer, we are raised to think in a linear manner. The world being divided by black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. However one must have the insight to grow outside of this stage and look at a much broader picture.

However one must also not turn into a pragmatist. For example, Albert Wesker of Resident Evil 5. The man has a purpose, to save mankind from total annihilation by allowing a select few to live.

This act is seen as evil. However, look closely. Humanity has a nature to wage constant warfare, political differences separate us at every turn.

A worldwide calamity would only help unite mankind under a common purpose. However, this practical plan would be considered ethically incorrect due to the cataclysmic loss of life related to it.

Therefore we as humans with working brains, must realize the world is nothing more than shades of gray. Ethics, Law, and Morals are manmade concepts meant to retain stability, and order amongst a diverse society of semi-intelligent beings. When we make a choice, we must see the repercussions as well as the possible harm done to others that the possible choice may make.

If world leaders were Philosophers instead of Lawmen, our world would be a better place.

[shortbus]

There is no such thing as right and wrong, there is no such thing as morals; Only consequences.

This post is not appropriate for a debate; This is not "Post your opinion." Back it up. Warn level increased. -Darknezz[/size]

[heavy0metal0queen]

I really don't think that there is a clear line between right and wrong, even when it comes to murder. A sense of right and wrong are things you learn, not something all humans are born with, and I believe that the environment a person grows up in has a greater influence over its development than society.

As Darknezz said, the common opinion on the murders Hitler ordered is that they were abominable, inhumane crimes. And yet, even today, we still have neo-nazis who believe that what went on during the holocaust was not only acceptable, but for the good of humanity as well.

Therefore, to say that all humans are born with a clear sense of right and wrong is to say that the people who hold this belief are not human.
And, as society treats Hitler's crimes as the tragedies that they were, humans do not base their sense of right and wrong on what society teaches them. (at least, not all of them do.)

It doesn't matter what you define as right or wrong, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with you, which is why there is even such thing as crimes in the first place. Right and wrong is something we need to figure out for ourselves, although that goes wandering onto the topic of morality, rather than right vs. wrong.