Right or Wrong

I was thinking about the concept of right and wrong, and what is "morally" accepted in the public. As each new generation arrives, more and more things are becoming acceptable to the general public. Like being more sexual and what not. What a person believes to be right might be wrong to another, and what you think of is right and wrong is usually derived from your parents correct? So when a person thinks of wrong and right, they're just basically thinking of what feels comfortable for them. If they feel that this or that is unfair or unreasonable, they would find that to be "bad". If the person believes that something makes them feel comfortable, they would believe that is good.

I apologize(that's the only thing I seem to be doing) if the topic is not up to class to and if the topic is not easily understood.

For the Most part, that's all Right and Wrong is about... The Values you were taught growing up... If it doesn't make you feel "right" then to you it is wrong.... Wrong to you might be Right to me... It Differs between Upbringings...

Suppose how you were brought up can make a large impact.

right or wrong is a questionable idea. what is right and what wrong. we can all agree that murder and rape is bad(rape became bad when the English Victorian make it so) but is gay, or loli wrong. how about sex or gambling. you can list a butt load of things and someone will say it right or wrong. it depends on the person and how they're raised.

I dont think right and wroung are decided on the values you are raised on. Although we may be brought up to think something is wroung, lets use gay as an example, you evently change your mind about all this through your own exsperences with gay people. What you are raised on only create a week foundation that may be completly shattered or solidifidy over the cource of your life.

I agree with moral things for the most part (like, be nice to others, act well, live well, etc) but if they are questionable, I either back them with solid reasoning or disregard them.

For example, some people may consider killing murderers as "moral", but then it goes against the initial reasoning for killing. Or if someone finds it moral to harm others based on their radical religious beliefs, I find that hard to side with.

Yea, I recently have been thinking about this too. Things that are morally right or wrong are entirely decided by each individual. This is why there are a lot of contradicting opinions about various topics. Of course, there are also things that are almost universally accepted as morally right or wrong. However, it still is not a rock solid thing.

Something like a "bear is a mammal"...well thats a different story. lol. Nothing to do with morals/values, just facts.

You say more and more things are becoming acceptable to the general public, but a lot of generally harmless stuff are getting outlawed and branded as wrong as well (take the loli ban for example. Man, that is one retarded law), and as this continue the values of society changes.

Well, what is right and wrong is from the very beginning something that is very subtle, and it varies with each person, culture and generation. What people think is right and wrong (at least on the outside, and instead show their displeasure anonymously on the net) is decided by the culture we live in and by how we are raised. Most things concerning "morals" derives from religious opinion (or from the reject of it), or else it has been outlawed and had so much political anti-propaganda against it that it has become "wrong" in the eyes of society.

I always viewed Right and Wrong as something soceity decides not individuals. How that soceity was brought up and its culture.

Right is what society wants...wrong is what society hates...

^This. Morality is entirely a social construct; just look at different cultures to see this.

I think some 'rights' and 'wrongs' are based on the instinctive behaviorism we've developed throughout the course of human civilization. For example, the taboo of pursuing pedophilic relationships could be attributed to the fact that a prepubescent girl is unable to give birth to offspring in the first place.

I agree with this because for example lets say you are surrounded with stupid people but in fact they are the majority and you will be considered the stupid one from their point of view since you are different and the "exception" there.

There are two approaches to morality: subjective and objective.

Subjective morality changes, especially with region and time. Where one act is ok in one place, it isn't ok in another. For example, slavery was ok in the past centuries, and marriages between teens and 30 year olds was the norm. Today, slavery is not ok, and anyone below 18 is jailbait.

Objective morality is when you believe that morality is not dependent on what the public thinks -- that there are things that are right and wrong, no matter what other people think.




So, people who are as dumb as rocks are actually geniuses?

No but since they are the majority and so to say the "society" they will decide who is right and who wrong and you probably know as well as i do that arguing with stupid people isnt possible

Example:
If you live in a town like in Machi gurumi no wana's story....not raping a girl is stupid....
If you live in normal town raping is bad....

^this also works lol

I find that "right" and "wrong" are ultimately subjective concepts. Both stem from our upbringing, which in a way is combination of our parent's believes, societal norms and the like. Thus, it is possible that one concept that is "right" for us, may be "wrong" for the others.

Additionally, neither concept can exist without another; in essence, "right" is opposite of "wrong". But if any one would not exist, than the other one wouldn't as well, because we wouldn't have any opposite to help us define it i.e for most cases the "wrong" or "bad" is consider like that because it is opposite for what is "good". For example, if you find life (of any kind) sacred, than the opposite for that, killing, will be a sacrilege. But what about if you never considered life sacred, if it never was anything "good" or "right" to you? Would you still consider the act of killing "wrong" then?

Of course, this is just a simplified example; few things in life are that easy, and there are always a multitude of other factors that affect your morality. Life may not be sacred to you, but there might be another thing that will make you consider killing as wrong.


Just throwing in my two cents.

Right and wrong are just personal rules and/or guidelines you've set up for yourself all of your life. Less you follow your rules the more you are in the wrong. And the more you follow your personal rules the more you are in the right. Its all a matter of subjective opinion.

Hmm, that's a hard question. What is 'right' and what is 'wrong' depends on the situation. I believe that no one does 'wrong' things because it shouldn't be done, but what if the person didn't think it was 'wrong' at that time?

In example, a person kills another person because he feels that person had wronged him, at that time when he is enraged, he thought that killing was 'right' at that time because it was acceptable, even though some time later he started to feel that it was 'wrong'.

So my conclusion is that as long as a person feels that what he did is 'right', he can do anything, because to him, he is 'right'.