objective and universal right and wrong

Inspired by the post of a new user, I decided to open a new topic, which I'd like to start with a quote from that very same inspiring post:


So, with this beautiful concept of empathy as basis of all human interaction in mind, I'd like you all to sit down and think for a moment and then tell me:

It's called natural law.

I heard a lot about this sort of stuff and I gotta say one thing... everybody sees their own perspective in their own way. Some perspective in life are so great that it exceeds common sense ( for the bad guy), and where a lot of people thinking using common sense is a good thing ( for the good guy). In the end there are no such conclusions to who's ideals are right or wrong... it's more like nowadays people just wanna fight so their ideals remain on top and they see their ideals fit for the universe ( assuming they have visited the entire universe ).... yin and yang, good and evil, black and white, boys or girls, their ideals and perspective in things are entirely different than each others, but can we say if their ideals are right? NO,because then we would have something against their ideals even though some share similar ideals in life, so life always clashes each other with agreements and disagreements

Which one is better, Batman or the Joker?
Who's intentions are purer, God or Satan?
Which ideals are most fit, war or world peace?

These questions have many answers and many people will disagree on each others answers because of their perspective on rights and wrongs.

I have my ideals and goals in life, but can other people agree to my ideals?
Probably not.

But I agree, to really survive on this planet we have to agree one thing, Human survival

I didn't ask who's ideals are the right or wrong ones, but if there is such thing as objective and universal right and wrong for everyone and everything?

For example: Is killing wrong through and through or is it right in certain circumstances? Is stealing wrong through and through or is it right in certain circumstances? Is lying wrong through and through or is it right in certain circumstances?

What would be the religiously and morally unbiased right and wrong for these examples and all the possible circumstances tied to them? What would be the objective right and wrong for all the possible situation, where a killing could occur?

So killing another human being for fun is wrong. But killing another human being by accident in self defense is right? Some countries punish people who intentionally killed other people with killing them. Means they say killing someone intentionally is wrong, but then do the same thing by killing intentionally (since execution is one form of intentional killing) while saying it is right.



But what makes something "simply wrong" or "simply right", if we cut out all the influences?

No, the concept of right and wrong can never be objective, it shouldn't be objective either, bringing such a topic that is solely based on personal preference to an objective level would disastrous.

I liked two of the points listed in Wordmangler's post.

• I believe that there is no such thing as right or wrong -- that the entire concept has no application to real life.

• I believe that notions of right and wrong are simply established by convention, by agreement between members of a society, and have no intrinsic rightness or wrongness.

First of, what morals a person can possibly have is a concept that is purely personal, you'll be influenced by everything around you, and some things will appeal more than others. People are also taught morals from their peers, but this will also be interpreted on a personal level, and applied as such.

I will never try to disregard that there is a overwhelming majority of people that believe the same things are right and wrong, especially notions that I think basically everyone agrees with, eg. Murder is "wrong", molesting children is bad and that curing diseases are good.
- These things correlates to the point of convention. Of course I'd rather have good neighbors than bad ones, but the entire idea of what makes a good vs a bad neighbor is subjective. I want someone who correlates to my idea of what makes him good/bad for my own comfort.
Of course I think that murdering someone for no reason is sad, sick, twisted and unnecessary, but who am I to say it is inherently wrong?

With this being said I completely agree with the opening quote about empathy. But empathy and morals have very little to do with eachother, I'd almost say that it support my point. In a world with objective concept of right and wrong there would be no empathy. There would be no need for empathy since the concepts would already be set in stone.
The majority's notion of morals also change with the times, just a century ago basically every known culture would raise to smash a couple of homosexuals into oblivion and no one would think twice about it, but if we go even further back there were cultures that saw nothing wrong with it. Modern science got where it is today through research that many thought were amoral and wrong once, that it was in defiance to whatever force they believed in.

tldr: Morals are subjective and ever-changing, it would be sad to see they become objective, it would stagnate the entire world.

On the other side ethical subjectivism brought us the Inquisition, Holocaust, Apartheid, ... and those didn't exactly improve our world.

Anyway, according to cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, the truth of moral statements depends upon people's values, attitudes, feelings, or beliefs.

Some forms of cognitivist ethical subjectivism can be even counted as forms of anti-realism. Where according to non-cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, such as emotivism, prescriptivism, and expressivism, ethical statements cannot be true or false, at all: rather, they are expressions of personal feelings or commands.

On the other hand the ethical objectivist claims, that the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true — no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false — no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels.

I never believed in definite right or wrong (except for what my religious views tell me). Justice is ambiguous and there is no way a person can define someone else's sins and good deeds.

Let's take Hitler for example. Many people epitomized him as the Devil on Earth. He killed Jews in gas chambers and destroyed lives and families and many others.

Why did he do it? He never had any personal hatred against Jews (despite all the rumors about Hitler being offended personally by Jews as long as there is no concrete evidence I will not take those into reference). And yet when he came to power he treated them like vermin. Why is that? The Germans back then were often taught how German blood is the best in the world, and how Jewish blood was no better than shit. And yet, the Jews had jobs, had homes and had a good life in Germany while the general German population suffered from poverty and thousands were unemployed due to the national debt from World War I. Hitler, being a fierce nationalist and a firm believer of what was taught him all his life, was furious. The first thing he did when he came to power was to ensure German superiority, namely rooting out the supposed cause of German poverty, the Jews. While this may sound like an excuse to the common citizen, let us not forget he was 44 when he came to power. He was taught and instilled Anti-Semitic views for all the 44 years of his life when he came to power. Therefore, he was just doing what everyone would do when they were in his shoes; do what he was taught to do. He was mislead and simply born at the wrong place at the wrong time. He could have been a better person and the way some see it, he was doing it for his people. He was doing what Obama can not do now; satisfying his people. Is that really so terrible a thing to do?

Then again, he murdered thousands of people. Murder in itself is a sin yes, but what about the two nukes the US dumped on Japan? 'Twas a necessary procedure to stop the war'. Really? 150000 to 246000 people died from the nukes and thousands more suffered from radiation poisoning. And most of them were civilians. The US understood clearly what they were about to do, and yet they did not refrain from doing so. Necessary procedure indeed. Still doesn't change the fact that you sinned by murdering that much people.

And yet American judges were there at the Nuremburg trials. Why should a murderer judge a murderer? What gives a murderer the right to judge another murderer? Why should I adhere to the verdict of a murderer? It all boils down to one sentence: Winner takes all. We live in a world built on Victor's justice, and such a biased form of justice is always subjected to change, therefore changing right or wrong in the process as well.

I believe justice can only be achieved through peaceful methods and understanding. War generates hatred, and hatred clouds judgement. If both the sides stand at an understanding perspective, only then can the verdict be unbiased and fair. Sadly that form of peace does not exist in the world as we know it today. Therefore, before the day when total peace is achieved, I will never believe in the human concept of justice and moral right or wrong. And no, I do not believe right or wrong exists in the current phase of humanity. It will appear someday, but until then, no.

Fun thing with religious morals is that many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as deriving from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable - that is called moral absolutism.
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). It is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature.

In the western world we live in countries that are regulated by the government law. Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible.

In some way law determines what is right and wrong. For example the legislature distinguishes between lawful and unlawful killing. So is murder defined as the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human. So the law distinguishes between right and wrong killing of human beings. The wrong killing is called unlawful homicide and is punished.

But the law varies from country to country and it isn't really objective on all topics. The perfect example of how law could be influenced by culture and/or religion is same sex marriage. There is no objective reason for not allowing same sex marriage.

These types of topics are stupid. There are things called Human Rights. Everyone has their own morals, which is fine, but when you disregard pre-existing HUMAN RIGHTS, and try to figure out some OTHER type of "right and wrong" system, it's just ridiculous.

So you would put human rights above anything else, taking them as the ultimate right. Which means for example that there should be no death penalties, since the essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being, is one of those human rights.

Then we have for example freedom of religion, which is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. A right against some atheistic organizations argue that the right guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Further on aren't all religion in harmony with all the human rights, including the freedom of religion. Muslims for example are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion. In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God and according to Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed.

But both freedom to live and freedom of religion are elemental human rights and should be equally important. So how do we decide which one is more "right"? Do we put freedom to live above freedom of religion or the other way around?

See? Not that simple.

You're right about the death penalty. Nobody deserves to die, no matter what they've done. At least, they don't deserve to be killed BY the death penalty.

As for freedom of religion, being able to express yourself spiritually, no matter how you may go about doing that, isn't wrong. It's a human right. You can worship any god or refuse any god; that's a right we have as human beings. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you have to be of a faith; it means you can treat faith however the hell you want.

Religions that have rules that don't allow you to switch faiths are going against human rights. Forcing a specific belief and punishing people who don't believe it is as wrong as sacrificing prepubescent girls.

So basically, yes, The Human Rights are a static guideline for human interaction and all that good stuff. They outline what is right and what isn't.

For me, the closest thing to a universal right or wrong would be the golden rule. We are all human beings, and i think that fact is enough to form a system of right and wrong

There should no special rules about religion. Religion is a choice you make and should not be respected any more then other active choices you make in life. The fact that it's illegal where I live to say " Christians are retarded for believing in god" makes me sick to my stomach. But anyways, back to topic...

I believe rights and wrongs are created as a mean of punishing bad behavior. Different groups/societies of people will have different view of what's right and wrong as the purpose or goal of a certain group/society will be different then that of another group/society. Hence a Univeral right or wrong action must be something that is deemed positive or negative by nearly all people. So there are a couple, but very few. As for the human rights, I know that I at least does not agree with all of them.

How about masochists? :D

There shall be NO Thomas Aquinas at this table!

You know your post didn't not quite make sense as an answer to me, and you really need to stop copy-pasting from wikipedia. Yes, I searched your post for that kind of shit.

Now make a rebuke that actually has anything to do with my post instead of trying to explain to me what you think that I stand for.

Just sayin'.

First, quoting is not forbidden and I never tried to hide it. I always quote, when I want to use neutral definitions and wikipedia is a good source, when I don't want to waste hours and hours of my time looking for more complex definitions in my philosophy books (which wouldn't be in English anyway).

When I write my own opinion I add "I think" or "in my opinion" and then write out my own words.

That also means that I didn't try to explain to you what I think that you stand for, because you can explain that yourself perfectly for sure. Also I don't pretend to be able to read minds over the internet.

I also didn't attack you in any way, so I don't quite get why your are reacting so irritated (but maybe that's just my imagination because of the lack of facial expressions and tone).

What I am trying to do is to provide neutral definitions of moral/ethical subjectivism/objectivism, without stating my own opinion.

Oh, I thought this was a discussion, not a seminar. It still had nothing to do with anything, all you said was "Well, these guys think this, and then there are these guys that believe this."

All completely irrelevant to my post and written in a language that I'd be surprised if you yourself even understood half of.

I hope that you understand where this is coming from, the interesting thing is not what some moldy old geezer thought 50 years ago, wrote a paper about and people started to use as a label for something that only distantly relates to the original thought. The interesting thing is what you think about it.

Oh well, this was all terribly off topic however, so I'll get back to the task at hand.

---

Human Rights are just as much a man-made concept as anything else, they can be disregarded just like anything else, and they are not universal truth, if they were, people wouldn't try actively to break them.

Not to mention that I don't like the entire idea of human rights from the start. The written human-rights thing that you are talking about is not human rights at all, they are only a document of privileges given to you by the higher ups. But a privilege is not a right, think about it.

I still don't get why you have to be offensive. Stating that someone is lacking the intelligence and knowledge to understand what someone else has written or said is quite the assumption.

Therefore regarding this:


You just had to ask me. Simple as that.

Anyway, since I agree that this is "all terribly off topic", I'd be happy to talk about my own point of view on this topic.

My own point on view is based on the experiences I had in my life, which shaped me into someone, who always tries to stay as objective as possible about anything. Of course I am only human and therefore don't succeed always in that quest, but I am doing my best.

That means that I do think that there is something like an objective although not universal right and wrong. That is why I like the example of killing so much:

Killing for food to preserve life is right.
Killing for food, but more than it is needed, is wrong.
Killing by accident in (self) defense is right.
Killing in (self) defense, although there were CLEARLY other possibilities, is wrong.
And so on ...

So my personal opinion is that there is no universal principle that applies to all kinds of different situations and cases, but a right and wrong can be determined objectively for every single situation independently.