Author Topic: Right and Wrong Subjective?  (Read 10718 times)

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Right and Wrong Subjective?
« on: April 17, 2009, 05:32:10 PM »
This is an argument not a fight, meaning to participate you must be willing to discuss not as miyabi calls it flame! Are the concepts of Right and Wrong subjective or are they sbujective. Because you are trying to convince the other side that you are in the, forgive the saying, right the supernatural is not a justification of a claim (that means god, ten commandments, & ect.). If you wish to discuss religon go to the religous discussion thread.



P.S. please give some justification for your claims otherwise this thread becomes an IS, IS NOT cat fight...and that is not the purpose.
"Words are double edged blades. Only the great and the foolish play with knives." - Kaz the Buddah

"Take off your sandals, for you are posting on holy ground." -  Yahweh Kaz

"Chaos, go to your room!" - Momma Kaz

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2009, 07:48:07 PM »
I think right and wrong is *VERY* subjective. There are no universal laws on what's right/wrong and good/evil. Many things based on our sets of morality can be interpretted to us as one way or the other, and some seem so ingrained as "bad things" to us that they seem to be just naturally wrong.

As an example, to us, killing an ant (or even an ant colony) is the "right" thing to do if they are intruding on our living quality, as we consider them an inferior life form. What if one day in the future, we develop space travel, etc., and there's an alien race who deems us inferior and we are intruding on their life/comfort? Do they have every right to destroy us?

Some people may argue that killing an ant is wrong. Ok, that's their choice on the issue of right and wrong. There are also ants that can kill people, if threatened by one of these, or even approached with the possibility of being bitten/stung/whatever, is the human within his rights to kill it? What about in our above scenario with some alien species? What if they feel that our presence is a threat to even one life of their race? Would they be within right to kill said humans?

Once again, the answer as to if it's right or wrong are subjective. I'm sure the human has a different view of what is right and wrong in these two situations than either of the opposing parties (aliens or ants). The ants don't generally have a concept of right and wrong as far as we can tell, all they know is there is a human which can kill it, or it (or they) can strike first and kill. The aliens obviously think protecting themselves is the right thing, which is the same the humans most likely think.

now, obviously, this is an abstract scenario, but it helps convey my point.
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

readerMom

  • Level 8
  • *
  • Posts: 275
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Books, mostly
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 08:15:25 PM »
As human, with a brain full of  abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it.  Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture.  Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality.   I wonder if  young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong.  There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion.  Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 08:31:36 PM »
As human, with a brain full of  abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it.  Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture.  Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality.   I wonder if  young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong.  There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion.  Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.


exactly, animals *DON'T* have a natural concept of right and wrong, which means that there is no universal constants of right and wrong, otherwise they would just know it naturally.

All conceptions of these beliefs come from the ability to distinquish things that you can do, but know you should/shouldn't do, which means that it's subjective to the mindset of the person interpretting it. What's right for some is wrong for others and vice versa. Someone who's live their life in the gutter recognizes that stealing is percieved as "wrong" by others, but is perfectly acceptable for them if the choice is die or steal. They probably have the same viewpoint is the choice is between "kill someone else" or die themselves. They have a much more "Survival of the fittest" instinct, so their view on morality is much different than what you or I would perceive.

if something is not going to be subjective, then it has to be a universal constant. That is, it's the same anywhere and everywhere you go, no matter who or what you consider, otherwise it's quite subject to being of a relative nature.
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 09:29:10 PM »
As human, with a brain full of  abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it.  Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture.  Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality.   I wonder if  young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong.  There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion.  Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.


exactly, animals *DON'T* have a natural concept of right and wrong, which means that there is no universal constants of right and wrong, otherwise they would just know it naturally.

All conceptions of these beliefs come from the ability to distinquish things that you can do, but know you should/shouldn't do, which means that it's subjective to the mindset of the person interpretting it. What's right for some is wrong for others and vice versa. Someone who's live their life in the gutter recognizes that stealing is percieved as "wrong" by others, but is perfectly acceptable for them if the choice is die or steal. They probably have the same viewpoint is the choice is between "kill someone else" or die themselves. They have a much more "Survival of the fittest" instinct, so their view on morality is much different than what you or I would perceive.

if something is not going to be subjective, then it has to be a universal constant. That is, it's the same anywhere and everywhere you go, no matter who or what you consider, otherwise it's quite subject to being of a relative nature.


I think you missed readerMom's point completely. I agree with her 100%. There is an objective right. Just becuase people don't adhere to what really constitutes right does not mean that an objective right doesn't exist. The objective right is universal. It is there and it is simply ingnored or not understood by many and maybe all. This whole conversion is moot if you cannot include religion in the discusion. There could be no such thing as objective morality without the existence of a higher power to lay down what constitutes right or wrong. That would be the problem with discussing right and wrong with atheists. They discount your theories out of hand because we live in a "fantasy" world.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 09:30:49 PM by Comfortable Madness »
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

readerMom

  • Level 8
  • *
  • Posts: 275
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Books, mostly
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 11:18:58 PM »
I think you cannot say right and wrong is a universal constant because universal constants are mathematical in nature.  I was a math and physics minor.  The only constants are the Planck constant, the speed of  light, the gravitational constant and similar measurable mathematical things.  To speak of anything that happens only inside a human head as a universal constant is nonsense.
Find another definition and you will have a more productive discussion.  The first step in any debate is to properly define your terms.

Renoard

  • Level 20
  • *
  • Posts: 989
  • Fell Points: 0
  • spurius non lucrorum
    • View Profile
    • Albion
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2009, 12:56:15 AM »
I think the metaphor of universal constants with regard to morality arises from buddhist influences, smashing into your earlier observations Mom.  For the real fundamentalist Buddhist, all matter and energy is an expression of the universal spirit.  So if you accept his view and then begin to deal with moral issues as being a similar expression of some meta-physical (as in Aristotle's meta physica) constant, like whatever governs the absolute speed of photons.

If a constant like the speed of light is an expression of some mindless spirit, then you could argue that the difference between objective good and evil could be a similar constant.  Of course, in such an economy, as you eluded there would be a mathematical continuum for good and evil, an absolute neutral, and of course, an absolute value of good.

Sounds a little like Dungeons & Dragons eh?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 02:08:32 AM by Renoard »
You can always get what you want if you never count the cost.

ryos

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 824
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The Decemberween Thnikkaman
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2009, 02:05:18 AM »
I say, of course they are! Everyone uses someone's definition of right and wrong. Religious people use (or ought to use) their god's definition. Governments codify their own definition into law. Disagreements over what is right and wrong are currently tearing the United States in half. Hmm...actually, maybe there's something to be said for having an absolute source of morality to look to...
Eerongal made off with my Fluffy Puff confections.

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2009, 05:20:11 AM »
You also need to define (ironically) what you mean by right and wrong—many atheists believe in an objective right and wrong:  Truth is Right, Falsehood is Wrong.  This is a strange sort of teleological morality, but it seems to work for some.

Your own particular relosophy will affect what you view as "objective" and "subjective", as well as what you view as right and wrong.  Any discussion of epistemology dealing with such cosmological elements as absolute right and wrong is going to get quite involved to begin with...

I will say, however, that the question itself is flawed:  Mankind is unable (short of divine intervention) to perfectly see Reality as-it-is.  As such, man's ability to know (short of divine intervention) what is absolutely right and wrong is also quite limited and flawed.  Right and Wrong may simply be unobtainable for man.

Two more thoughts:
1.  There does seem to be some elements of morality which are nigh-universal among humans.  C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man illustrates this with numerous examples in an appendix.

2.  Many people do not believe that men are simply animals, and, as such, for many, one cannot simply say that we are bound to act as animals do.  Only the most extreme naturalists (or biggest animal-rights activists) would argue otherwise.
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2009, 05:31:47 PM »
I think you cannot say right and wrong is a universal constant because universal constants are mathematical in nature.  I was a math and physics minor.  The only constants are the Planck constant, the speed of  light, the gravitational constant and similar measurable mathematical things.  To speak of anything that happens only inside a human head as a universal constant is nonsense.
Find another definition and you will have a more productive discussion.  The first step in any debate is to properly define your terms.

Well, and this is sort of off topic, but many string theorists predict that if string theory is correct, you *CAN* mathematically calculate what happens within the human mind, even with regards to emotions. But, since they can't prove it yet, this is hardly any proof of anything. Also, It's  worth noting I support string theory, because it's very elegant in its design, and can potentially solve the issues between quantum physics and relativity (classic) physics, if it's true!

Also, there're more constants in the universe than just that, like the Boltzmann's constant, Faraday constant, the Bohr radius, the Fermi coupling constant, etc. There's a whole slew of em. But that's off topic, too. (I've never majored or minored in physics, but I've studied them from a very young age, including taking all my electives as physics classes :P. Physics is actually a big hobby of mine! It's good to hear others around here studied and/or are into it too. Though I concede that those you mention are the only ones that are called "universal constants"  )

I think the metaphor of universal constants with regard to morality arises from buddhist influences, smashing into your earlier observations Mom.  For the real fundamentalist Buddhist, all matter and energy is an expression of the universal spirit.  So if you accept his view and then begin to deal with moral issues as being a similar expression of some meta-physical (as in Aristotle's meta physica) constant, like whatever governs the absolute speed of photons.

If a constant like the speed of light is an expression of some mindless spirit, then you could argue that the difference between objective good and evil could be a similar constant.  Of course, in such an economy, as you eluded there would be a mathematical continuum for good and evil, an absolute neutral, and of course, an absolute value of good.

Sounds a little like Dungeons & Dragons eh?

Of course the world is like D&D! Are you trying to say I can't really smite evil?!?! :P
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2009, 02:16:28 AM »
I never said that you couldn't discuss morality, what i did say was not to attempt to argue with the reasoning of the supernatural it gets you nowhere except in a fight... One more thing we ARE animals they lack (to our knowledge) the neccesary intelligence to form such concepts as right and wrong but just because of that don't discard the possiblity that they will never come to this understanding i mean the structure of apes and animal packs is pretty complicated right and wrong isn't a big step from that.
"Words are double edged blades. Only the great and the foolish play with knives." - Kaz the Buddah

"Take off your sandals, for you are posting on holy ground." -  Yahweh Kaz

"Chaos, go to your room!" - Momma Kaz

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2009, 07:44:25 AM »
Kaz, out of curiosity, have you read the literature on the animal studies relating to this?  Are you familiar with Amy, the Gardners, or other well-documented cases of working with educated primates?  Have you done much reading in the difficulties associated with referencing animal for human psychology?

I happen to have an unnatural interest in Cognitive Science, and am engaged to a Psychologist, so I know more about this topic than I probably have a right to…
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2009, 04:37:17 PM »
I never said that you couldn't discuss morality, what i did say was not to attempt to argue with the reasoning of the supernatural it gets you nowhere except in a fight...
I think trying to discuss morality without referencing the supernatural will get you nowhere except...nowhere.

Morality stems from the supernatural. Without the supernatural, all you've got are situational ethics. It's important to remember though that there are principles that are eternal, but the proper application of those principles is contextual and may be different according to society, time period, and circumstance. With situational ethics there's no underlying principles—you just have to do what seems best at the time.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2009, 04:40:59 PM »
@Jade Knight no i haven't read anything I've watched a couple of flicks, but if your point is me being as ignorant as a newborn then the answer is yes i am that, but if a small child can understand the underlying concepts I'm pretty sure the chimps they show on documentaries can't be that far behind, or possibly there.
"Words are double edged blades. Only the great and the foolish play with knives." - Kaz the Buddah

"Take off your sandals, for you are posting on holy ground." -  Yahweh Kaz

"Chaos, go to your room!" - Momma Kaz

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Right and Wrong Subjective?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2009, 05:21:26 PM »
@Jade Knight no i haven't read anything I've watched a couple of flicks, but if your point is me being as ignorant as a newborn then the answer is yes i am that, but if a small child can understand the underlying concepts I'm pretty sure the chimps they show on documentaries can't be that far behind, or possibly there.

It seems to me that you are taking quite a leap here. You're "pretty sure" or that the chimps are "possibly there"? Not really doing alot for your argument by assuming things just to make your point seem more valid. You know what the say about those who assume.....
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar