What makes something "right" over something else?

[Assassin X]

Ok, everything I am about to say such as some "examples" are not to be debated, they are just examples to show what I am talking about. The topic at hand is What makes something someone says, does....etc "right" over what someone else says or , does...etc?

Some many examples (try to read them all):
Example 1 is from many sites:
Racist remarks. Alot of posts get remove form sites because a moderator, admin...etc finds it to be racist because someone else thinks it is or the admin himself thinks it is. If I say my friends black someone might think thats "racist" or stereotyping because I didn't say african-american. Where as some people say your just saying hes black and would say its racist when you say more...."slang" like words. What makes something right over something else?

Example 2 is from this site:
Religion is something that depending on where your at you will get two diffrent responses. On this site if someone posts something they seriously are curious about like "Did dinos exist in bible times" it just turns into a religious bashing topic. On this site moderators opinions would be since religion is fake its ok to hurt others feelings if their religious. Where as on other sites that are religious if someone bashses the religion a post gets deleted. Once again What makes something right over something else?

Example 3 is from anywhere:
Swearing is something most forums have a massive amount of varying rules about. Here its allowed but to a limit. Some sites you could name every swear word and insult someone up and down and no one would notice. Others words like "pee" and "poop" are bad to say. As always What makes something right over something else?

Once again I refer to the top of my topic where I said we are not here to debate the examples, as I already know some members like to do. We are here to talk about "What makes something right over something else?".

Heres my feeling and thoughts....

Most people (at least the nieve younger people with more rebelious sides) says if its my forum (as in their moderators) I can do what I want. I say that isn't right, yeah good for you your a mod but does that mean its right? If a bunch of murderers made a forum and talked about how to murder people and banned people that said "murder is wrong" would they be right because its "their forum"?

I feel everything is an opinion and because we have to have everything "controlled" there becomes a point where things get out of hand where people think someones elses opinion is wrong and have it deleted. Thats not right. Obviously if its something thats just beyond crazy that shouldn't be posted then thats diffrent like saying "I want to moleste little girls" or crap like that.

I'll come back to religion, this isn't debating it, its talking about peoples opinion on it. To me when people post "God sucks ****", "God was a homo", "Look another kiddy porn pastor"....etc thats offensive to me, its attacking my religion. To you its meaningless other then an attack to me its one step below hurting me personally. It would be like me saying perverted things to your kids. You wouldn't like it. But on this site the majority opinion is "Religion is fake so who cares". Does that means its right to hurt others because you think your opinion is right?

If we live by these rules then its no wonder why we got crazed "jihad" people that want to kill us, they think their opinion is right too. If we only think one thing is right then what do we excpect in return in the future.

Ok, feel free to answer the ""What makes something right over something else?" topic.

[DontBeAfraid]

Assassin, I didnt read your whole thread. I read the topic and the first few words of each break. I also read the very last sentence.

Assassin I am very happy to see that you are on your way to breaking the chains of your indoctrination. Keep asking questions like this.

[Cornish Maid]

What makes something right over something else?

Well I suppose its a subjective thing. Is it right to feed a dog with a live cat or is it wrong. Some people seem to think it's right but I would hope most would see it as wrong. Moral compass stuff.

I'm sorry to hear you have been indoctrinated and I suggest you look into the matter and keep us updated.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

*shrugs* Ethical right and wrong is somewhat tricky to define - I generally don't push a version of "right" onto someone unless their actions affect others. Racism, for example, alienates people who are from minority races, so you could argue that it is universally "wrong" for sake of keeping the peace, if nothing else.

There's really only one example I have to focus on:


On this site if someone posts something they seriously are curious about like "Did dinos exist in bible times" it just turns into a religious bashing topic. On this site moderators opinions would be since religion is fake its ok to hurt others feelings if their religious.

Should I even address the "moderators opinions" thing? No, it's pretty clearly pointless. Moving on.

In this case, you're not really attacking religion so much as arguing against a theory that stems from religion. As always: it's a debate. You should expect to be disagreed with. Some people are pretty militant about their side of the argument, which is a shame, but it's tricky to draw the line there. You can't really use racism positively, but sometimes being sarcastic and condescending during an argument is totally justified.

[jinxz]

Of course you know a lot of post-modern style philosophers would argue that the terms "right" and "wrong" have no meaning outside their given cultural context. That is, they say there's no objective ethical reality. So right and wrong are whatever the prevailing cultural/power group says they are. Then there's the opposite extreme, moral absolutists, who believe certain actions are either morally right or wrong no matter what the circumstances. There is of course some middle ground in the argument; for example, there is a position of moral objectivism. Objectivists argue that there is a real difference between right and wrong, and it is independent of the whims of any culture or society. I think a lot of people confuse or conflate objectivists with absolutists, but there is a distinction. One who's an absolutist is almost certainly also an objectivist, but not the other way around (not all objectivists are absolutists).

Some of the questions an objectivist might ask would be:

Who does this action benefit and how does it benefit them?

Who does this action harm and how does it harm them?

Is this action fair to all those affected?

Now of course there's a lot of ambiguity involved in the terms "benefit," "harm," and "fair," but just as with "right" and "wrong," objectivists believe there are real differences and that objectively better or worse decisions can be made.
For an example of an objectivist moral position, think of utilitarianism (mind you there's more than one form of it).

Last of all, I'm just advancing the objectivist moral philosophy for the sake of argument, so please don't respond to this by saying how stupid my moral philosphy is, as I have not been presenting it.

[Assassin X]

I always find it offensive when people say to me "I am very happy to see that you are on your way to breaking the chains of your indoctrination". Thats that new age crap of "feel good", religion is for robots stuff talking. Basically saying "Religious people don't think outside the box", therefor their opinions are null and void.

Grant it half of "religious" people don't completley think out side the box, its not true for the other half though, they think outside the box. I have never had a "inside box" opinion based on my religion. I have had opinions based on morals. Some would say "Well thats being in the box". Would you rape a child? Why not? Think outside the box! Religion is just like morals. Its my code of conduct, unlike yours I just follow more, for some people though they take it to far and trap them selves and can't think without it.

When it comes to indoctrination its the other way around if you think about it for you non religious people. Religious people just had a word invented for them. You people don't have a word. You follow "rules" to that let you not think outside the box either. I posted examples in my first post! Not accepting religion is not thinking outside the box, thinking "black" is racist where as it means just.... black means you can't think outside the box....etc.

So really no one here is any better. None of you think outside the box any better then I do. While I may be religious at least I am able to think "way" outside the box.

Although I fear like most people I met I am noticing more and more you''ll probably find a way to say I am wrong and its just me and my "kind" or something and you think fine or something. If you don't I would be amazed and you would be thinking outside the box! :nudge:

[Sammy56]

What I think is right is whatever helps people. I think what is wrong is what hurts people.

Now, obviously, that is to vague to be of much use. What is helpful? What is hurtful? What if the intention is good, but the results are negative? Morality, in my opinion, is in no way objective. I guess it's possible for it to be so in theory, but in the real world, it's difficult, if not impossible, to have moral absolutes. You would almost have to examine each case separately, and even then, people will disagree.

[The Space Pope]

Interesting topic. If you enjoy thinking about things like this, try reading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzche. Also, being religious doesn't always mean you don't think outside the box. Only if you just accept the religion you were raised in without any question would it necessarily be restricting creative thought. Sadly, a lot of people do stick to the belief "It's what my parents believed, so it must be right," regardless of what those beliefs are.

[grendel 13]

there is no right or wrong. it's all a matter of perspective, but in the whole of reality the ideas do not exist, or at least they do not hold any true meaning. when someone does something "wrong" we expect them to suffer some sort of consequence, such as murderers going to jail or getting the chair. when someone does something "good" there is a reward(i know people will argue this saying they do good deeds just for the sake of helping others, but the feeling of doing good for others is in itself a reward.) now take a look at life outside of human society, and not even all of human society. nature is extremely cruel, dominant males will murder certain offspring to ensure their continued dominance, yet for this act of murder their is no consequence, the dominant male is actually rewarded with better chances of survival. if an animal tried to protect one of its own that was being attacked by lions, it, most likely would be killed as well, kind of a consequence for being "good." this could go on and on but hopefully i've made my point.

[Cornish Maid]

there is no right or wrong. it's all a matter of perspective, but in the whole of reality the ideas do not exist, or at least they do not hold any true meaning. when someone does something "wrong" we expect them to suffer some sort of consequence, such as murderers going to jail or getting the chair. when someone does something "good" there is a reward(i know people will argue this saying they do good deeds just for the sake of helping others, but the feeling of doing good for others is in itself a reward.) now take a look at life outside of human society, and not even all of human society. nature is extremely cruel, dominant males will murder certain offspring to ensure their continued dominance, yet for this act of murder their is no consequence, the dominant male is actually rewarded with better chances of survival. if an animal tried to protect one of its own that was being attacked by lions, it, most likely would be killed as well, kind of a consequence for being "good." this could go on and on but hopefully i've made my point.
What really makes me sick is that we, at the top of the food chain, and with consciences to boot. Do stuff like battery hen farms.

Right or wrong? Go down to your local battery farm and post your report.

[DontBeAfraid]

When it comes to indoctrination its the other way around if you think about it for you non religious people. Religious people just had a word invented for them. You people don't have a word. You follow "rules" to that let you not think outside the box either. I posted examples in my first post! Not accepting religion is not thinking outside the box, thinking "black" is racist where as it means just.... black means you can't think outside the box....etc.I guess I was wrong, you are no where near breaking your chains.
ASSX I was only ever partially indoctrinated by your religino and that was just through religious friends. When I started asking them questions that wrent answered through my partial indoctrination most would get offended. Like you. Sinse I wasnt brianwashed as ayoung child though I have to seek answers for myself whenever I come to a question like the ones you posted. So I believe the word you were looking for, when you realized that you have been indoctrinated and asked what word could be used to describe people not like you, would be open-minded. The word that describes people not like you is open-minded.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Not accepting religion is not thinking outside the box What the who now? I think that we need a thread entitled "What makes something inside or outside of the box?"...


What I think is right is whatever helps people. I think what is wrong is what hurts people. Well said, madame. Well said...

[Cartesiantheater]

This is my pretend argument for moral absolutes from another thread... it has holes, but if there's an appropriate thread for it, it's here... feel free to dissect; I will take no offense...this is only a thought experiment of sorts...(also, I should note that although the ideas presented, including memetics, kin selection and the "gene's eye view" come mostly from Richard Dawkins, this application is my own, to the best of my knowledge {see, Perfectionist started slaming Richard Dawkins after I posted this- I don't want to discredit my favorite zoologist by attributing the following poor reasoning to him, so I have to write this disclaimer... :2thumbs: })



Morality is NOT a human invention... IT IS A MEME. It "invented itself" in a way similar to that used by genes, and cells, and DNA, etc. Yes, it changes through time, as do all self-reproducers subject to natural selection. However, at any given instant of time t, there exists an absolute set of morals. Who defines what this absolute set of morals is? NO ONE! The MEME DOES! You are thinking of morals from the stand point of a sentient being. BIG MISTAKE. Sentient beings are NOTHING BUT A QUAGMIRE OF PARASITIC IDEAS HIJACKING A BRAIN WITH THE "INTENT" OF SELF-REPRODUCTION. There IS no "I". That is simply one more meme that evolved because of it's usefulness to the continuation of the organism, which in turn is useful for the continuation of the meme.

(the following paragraphs are not meant to be proof- they are a stepping stone or an interesting concept designed to compliment the logical contradiction proof)
Further, because of the characteristics associated with the definition of morality, if a given "morality" does not demonstrate those characteristics of
morality, it is no longer morality, BY DEFINITION. (for example, if you made a triangle with four sides, it CANNOT be a triangle, because by definition it is not one)
And now for the characteristics of morality. Morality consists of the obvious concepts of do not kill, do unto others, etc, with the exemption of religious vetos. How do I know this? Because universally, unless there is a religious exemption, ALL cultures consider these sort of acts as "morally right." (continue reading; I'm not done here)
Therefore, the meme of morality consists of the ideas of helping others, etc.
As soon as a "morality" does NOT consist of these things, it is no longer morality, because it no longer fits the definition. Why? Because the meme of morality has insured through natural selection that that is the definition of morality. How do I know that alternative definitions of morality are not correct (for example, it is moral to rape your children)? Because morality evolved for the same reason that altruism evolved: they help continue the replicating agent, (look up Kin selection for some details), that is, morality is a means for a parasitic agent to reproduce (both the gene and the meme). Therefore, when an action could endanger the reproduction of morality, it is then immoral. And any action that was harmful to the reproduction of the agent (acts which coincidentally involved inflicting pain or death to other people) became immoral, as the morality meme evolved. Once that foundation was set, morality was successfully passed on to other hosts, many times while parasitically infecting other memes, such as the religion meme. In addition, with the evolution of this meme came the evolution of the conscience, another innovative method this particular meme used (or perhaps, our other parasite, our genes, used the morality meme; in which case, the meme would be a host for the gene...)
Occasionally there are mutations; however, as long as the morality meme remains, these "mutations" are merely quasi morality... they are NOT moral.


But what it really boils down to, is what is good for the agent in question?

Of course, you could object and say that "good" is relative. And you would be wrong. By our own language we verify the existence of "goodness:" That is a "good" knife; It was a "good" book; Steve Young was a "good" quarterback ; That guy got fucked up "good;"

"Good" appears to be our word to describe something doing or achieving the purpose or action it is supposed to. And in the context of morality, a "good" morality is one in which the purpose or action of morality is achieved, and the purpose or action of morality is to insure that the hosts do not bring danger to the parasite. And any form of physical or emotional harm could bring danger to the parasite. Thus, being "mean" is immoral across the board, because it would then be "bad" morality, which in essence means "non-morality," because it could contribute to an incident in which the parasite is endagered.

Therefore, actions that inflict pain on oneself or on others are immoral, and "moralities" that claim that morality doesn't consist of these concepts are not actually morality; they are mutated descendents of morality- just like Chimpanzees and Humans are NOT the same thing as their genetic ancestor. In tandem with the concept that morality rests on those actions and thoughts that are beneficial to the parasitic agent itself, and the rejection of actions and thoughts that are harmful to the parasitic agent, and based on the above definition of good, these alternative "moralities" are simply not moral.

Completely airtight? No. Strong argument? Maybe, especially when used in conjunction with the fact that the phrase, "all opinions are equal" is an inherent self-contradiction. (again, see Flynn's thread about proving negatives by negation)


...anyway, even if absolute morality existed, we could not know in detail what actions were absolutely moral or not... carry on...