Proving nothing is right or wrong

[Blackbird123]

I am in a debate with someone that believes there is such a thing as right or wrong.....he took my wallet and told me explain to him why it was neither right or wrong.
I need my wallet back..
Please help me!!!!!

[Tim Cornelis]

Prove him right (which he is) and bash his head in.

[Blackbird123]

You are saying he is right?

[Ostrinski]

Simple: admit that it's wrong to steal other people's shit (in most cases).

[Blackbird123]

He will only give my wallet back if I prove him wrong

[Ostrinski]

Philosophical debate or no philosophical debate, you cannot just steal someone's money, identification, driver's license, and whatever else you might have in there.

Ask for it back. If he does not give it back, take it back. If he does not let you take it back, assault him.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't understand why you have to go online to ask people how to convince a thief to give you your wallet back. If you know who he is and where he lives, go and take it back yourself. Philosophizing is something you can do afterwards.

[Blackbird123]

He gave it back.....but he still wants an answer........

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This isn't relevant to your argument, but morality is a class construction. We can't ask people to do what they "ought" to do because they are only fulfilling the basic tasks that capitalism has given them. Morality shouldn't be an attempt to try to make people do that what is materially impossible, it should be a tool of the working class to smash that very structure that oppresses them.

“Communism is not love, communism is a hammer we use to smash our enemies”

[Blake's Baby]

You are saying he is right?

No, he's saying you should bash his head in. He (the person you're arguing with, not Tim Cornelis) can then work out who's right.

I got into a debate with someone who claimed there was no such thing as evil. So I kicked him really hard. He probably won the debate, because I kicked him out of altruism, to literally kick some sense into him. But i got to kick him. It was a peculiar sort of win-win situation.

[Lord Daedra]

If there is no right and wrong than why should people be revolutionary at all? I know this view ignores material and future theoretical circumstances, but if there is no right or wrong than why should i be revolutionary when i could just sell out and eventually retire to the keys? Liberating others from the shackles of capital makes no sense when i could help perpetuate their enthrallment for my personal pleasure(which is all that really matters without some form of moral code)? Class consciousness can't properly develop when everyone realizes that playing the game would easier than getting beat by the fuzz

[Blake's Baby]

Unless most people realise that (under the current system) they're likely to be losers (which they are).

It's like that parable of the Korean versions of heaven and hell (or whatever it is) - in hell, there a table laden with food, everyone has really long chopsticks, and they can't get the food in their mouths, so it all falls on the floor and is crushed. It's a horrific scene of desperation and hopelessness. In heaven, by contrast, there a table laden with food, everyone has really long chopsticks, and they can't get the food in their mouths, so they feed each other. It's a heartwarming scene of human co-operation (not altruism, just enlightened self-interest).

Same game, but depending on how you play the results are very different. Competition (and hoping you can eventually flick some food into your mouth/get the break that allows you to retire to the Keys) is the best way, not always. One can sometimes get more by giving more.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Yeah, just take it back, state to the thief that we live in a godless, meaningless universe where morality always boils down to circumstance and then slap him.

[Rugged Collectivist]

There is no right and wrong. To be specific, nothing is objectively right or wrong. Now, something can be factually right or wrong, but we're talking about ethics here.

Right and wrong is a matter of personal preference. All arguments on the subject boil down to "because I said so".

[Sea]

Blackbird, you were scammed. Royally.

[cyu]

From http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/14jvhm/we_dont_have_class_warfare/

I'm going to offer an "anthropological" definition of morality - whether you think that is the "right" way to make moral decisions is a different matter.

I would say that human morality has developed from the evolution of cooperation. If you surveyed all the world's religions, traditional laws, and old moral codes, I would say the common theme you would find among them is that they judge "moral" behavior as whatever happens to promote cooperative behavior between humans.

If you would freeze a homeless man, that is not cooperative behavior. On the other hand, people randomly barging into places other people sleep isn't cooperative behavior either. I would say what would be cooperative behavior in this case would be to help the weak survive, nurse them to health, and convince them (through friendship or conversion / seduction) to start helping others in your society as well.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation

[cyu]

In heaven, by contrast, there a table laden with food, everyone has really long chopsticks, and they can't get the food in their mouths, so they feed each other. It's a heartwarming scene of human co-operation (not altruism, just enlightened self-interest).


Was just considering this in a more general sense the other day...

In both heaven and hell, there are resources of various kinds.

In hell, the people use those resources to bomb, shoot, and fire missiles at each other.

In heaven, the people use the same resources to build homes, transportation, parks, and all the other stuff people use to actually enjoy life.

[Zostrianos]

Ultimately, there is no objective right or wrong. All morality is subjective, and changes according to the time and place. 300+ years ago it was considered right to kill women for supposedly practicing witchcraft (and still is in some societies). Slavery was once considered perfectly normal and acceptable. It was normal to mass murder people of other religions if they refused to convert. In some parts of the world human sacrifice was once viewed as ok and even virtuous. In a few traditional societies, cannibalism used to be common. Today, in some countries it's considered acceptable to murder your daughter\sister if she falls in love with someone you don't approve of. And so on........
There is no objective morality. Even in this case it could be argued that theft is not necessarily wrong, because while someone gets robbed, the thief benefits, so from the thief's standpoint it's morally acceptable. For everything bad that happens, someone or something will benefit, and arguments can be made as to how it's not really a bad thing, no matter what it is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ultimately, there is no objective right or wrong. All morality is subjective, and changes according to the time and place. 300+ years ago it was considered right to kill women for supposedly practicing witchcraft (and still is in some societies). Slavery was once considered perfectly normal and acceptable. It was normal to mass murder people of other religions if they refused to convert. In some parts of the world human sacrifice was once viewed as ok and even virtuous. In a few traditional societies, cannibalism used to be common. Today, in some countries it's considered acceptable to murder your daughter\sister if she falls in love with someone you don't approve of. And so on........
There is no objective morality. Even in this case it could be argued that theft is not necessarily wrong, because while someone gets robbed, the thief benefits, so from the thief's standpoint it's morally acceptable. For everything bad that happens, someone or something will benefit, and arguments can be made as to how it's not really a bad thing, no matter what it is.

The guy the OP is debating believes that there's no such thing as right or wrong, not that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Subtle but important difference. Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Comrade #138672]

The guy the OP is debating believes that there's no such thing as right or wrong, not that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Subtle but important difference. Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.To me morality is merely a useful convention arising out of the need to collectivize individual interests. This is why different moralities can clash.

I wouldn't say it is objectively bad to steal something, but I will still kick you in the nuts when you do. Unless, of course, you are not stealing from me, but from the bourgeoisie and using the acquired resources to aid the revolution.

Edit: I just found an article on this: Chris Harman - Dialectics of Morality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/2007/xx/morality.htm). It's pretty good.