what is right, what is wrong

[Monks Aflame]

This has always been at the back of my mind while playing the role of a pretentious teenage soul-searching philospher. What is right, or wrong? Are there universal truths? We know things change, and people believe different things. Religion, a prime example. But what's right? What's true? What's morally acceptable and correct? Thus erupts endless discussion on genetic engineering and revolution and abortion. But we are left unsatisfied, without an answer.

Then, I watched the movie Twelve Monkeys. Its about the death of 5 billion humans via the introduction of a virus, and the return of the rule of animals. But within the movie, there is a dialogue between two of the characters, trapped in a mental hospital. One character provides the definition of crazy, by saying "You know what crazy is? Crazy is majority rules." When the majority believes something, something different from yourself, you are labeled crazy. This is prominent within new science, experiments, discoveries. Existence of 'atoms'? Are you crazy? Germs? What? Quarks? Nutcase!

Now, let's morph this into an ideological situation. What's right and wrong? Who's to decide laws? Majorities? Popular opinions change. This ties in more with the main topics of discussion on these boards when I question all of you now. Who are you to revolutionize my country? I like it fine.

Currently, I feel that there is no right or wrong, as everything is relative. The Universal Laws of Plato do not exist, in my world. We have a basic moral standard, or do we? There is moral flexibility within society. People are hitmen, people are prostitutes, people are Catholic, people are Wicca, people are drug-users, people are tobacco company executives. How can there be any Universal Laws in a society encompassing such a diverse group? I fight for what a majority finds acceptable, what I believe is 'right.' But my beliefs change quickly, so what do you use as a bastion of stability? What do you all think of, as 'right', as what you believe in?

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont really have enough time to go into an answer fully, but one thing that I felt I had to comment on right now is the line I feel that there is no right or wrong, as everything is relative. Are you saying then that what the Nazis did to the jews in the third reich was acceptable, because it was relative. Or that a racist is right because that is what he believes. Nazis are not right, and niether are racists, regardless of whether or not they believe with all their conviction they are. People make decisions based on their material conditions, enforced on them by capitalism and the bourgeoisie. If a person is told that jewish people are responsible for their countries food shortage, then that person, more often than not, is going to start hating jews. That is not relative, that's capitalists creating divisions to hide the real problem. Capitalism. The only truth is Libertarian Marxism :ph34r:

[187]

There is no universal right or wrong. Right and wrong are always subjective and are based solely on judgement and perception.

[redstar2000]

Who are you to revolutionize my country? I like it fine.

Well, we hate it! So we'll revolutionize it (if we can) whether you like it or not.

The struggle continues...

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[blackemma]

I'm going to take a lot of hell for this, but here goes...

I'm a vegan. This means I don't eat, use, wear products which cause unecessary suffering to human and non-human animals. Whether or not you agree with this stance is irrelevent. I'm using it only for sake of argument.

I once read an argument by the Animal Liberation Front about moral relativity and why it justifies such things as the Nazi Holocaust. Well, this troubled me since I had always considered myself a moral relativist and I certainly did not want to think I was responsible for such things as the Holocaust. Besides, how could I justify my veganism if I didn't accept the traditional role of universal morality in making lifestyle choices? Well, the reality is that the Animal Liberation Front was wrong.

Moral relativity is the understanding that, in all likelyhood, there is no such thing as objective morality - it is all subjective. In fact, if you were to ask a post-structuralist, they may even tell you that objectivity altogether does not exist, let alone moral objectivity and its logical child, universal morality.

The reality is that morality has been responsible for most of the horrific genocides in recent history - the Holocaust being one of them. It was done in the name of Aryan or National Socialist morality - a twisted morality, but a morality nonetheless. The Khmer Rouge conducted their holocaust in the name of communism and the Christians began their Crusades based on high principles. When you argue against non-moralists, you are in fact supporting the same ideas that caused the Holocaust, no matter how noble your intentions are.

Morality, as I see it, has no real, rational basis. It is simply a social construct, but perhaps that's the libertarian in me speaking. I think a much more fitting model to follow is human inclination. Namely, compassion. I do not refrain from eating animals because I think it is morally wrong, but because my compassion would not allow me to even if I wished to, which I don't. Likewise, I avoid buying sweatshop-made products because I empathize with the horrible conditions those workers must be placed under.

To be brief, if a black woman or a homosexual or a Wiccan or any other traditionally targeted 'minority' - thinking in a Eurocentric fashion here - were placed in front of another person - let's say a white, secular male - I can conceive of no reason why the white, secular male would strike out against the other. In fact, the white, secular male may even find it's in his own best interest to cooperate with the other person for common goals and would likely forge a friendship with the person. This is a totally amoral, not immoral but amoral, situation. Now, imagine the same situation occured but the white, secular male was a religious moralist. Well, the black woman would likely be raped since the religious moralist would be able to go to the Bible to justify such actions. The homosexual would be burnt alive, not unlike the witch burnings in Europe - where, incidentally the term "fag" first appeared - because a certain Biblical passage declared that no man shall sleep in the bed of a woman with another man or some such thing. The Wiccan would probably be tossed into scorching flames along with the homosexual and all this would be done in the name of "morality".

As such, I remain sceptical of the concept of universal morality. Subjective morality is one thing, but when someone thinks they have determined the all-powerful Truth, by logic it follows they will, assuming they are a "moral" person, do anything, no matter how brutal or inhuman, in order to carry out the moral deed.

[Monks Aflame]

Look, its pretty much accepted world-wide that Hitler's Holocaust was wrong, but it wasn't wrong to Hitler, was it? So in his world, everything was going fine, he was doing the world a favor. What I'm saying is the tables can be turned based on twisting morals and bending perception. There's just so many ways to go about doing things. For example, is it not completely hypocritical to give the death penalty to a murderer? Is that not immoral?

[blackemma]

is it not completely hypocritical to give the death penalty to a murderer? Is that not immoral?

It is if you think it is... If you don't think it is, it isn't. God isn't sitting up in heaven judging any of us and if he is, that begs the question of who is judging God. Ah, I love philosophy...

[bluerev002]

What is right and what is wrong?

Not everything can be placed as simply right or wrong.

And you make no sense! If you say that your country is fine and you dont want us revolutionising it? Isnt that saying that you and your country is right and we are wrong for triying to revolutionise it?

Make sense of yourself before you try to make sense of us first kido!