Is there ever a definitive situation of right and wrong?

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Is there ever any situation where an answer is always right or always wrong? Or is everything situational? Example: Murder. If someone got killed, you would probably think that the murderer was the bad guy. Well, what if it was self defense or something similar? Is everything based on situation, or is there an action or decision that is always right or wrong?

 

[McCloud]

No.

But there are (sometimes) generalized principles on which to go by.

lolrelativism.

 

[blazedaces]

This also depends highly on your definition of right and wrong. I feel an entire theoretical discussion on ethics approaching...

An example you might be looking for is perhaps Kantian Ethics, though there are clear flaws in that system, as there are in just about any of the existing ones today...

-blazed

 

[slartibartfast42]

well, you can always get more specific or more general, and you can almost always come up with exceptions. Lying is bad. What about lying to protect the person you're lying to? General moral beliefs are the more beneficial/nicer thing to do in MOST situations, that's why they exist.

 

[GhostAnime]

we don't even know if our idea of right and wrong are actually right. it is a loaded question.

 

[redgreenblue]

Morals are kind of a subjective thing... so what one person says is wrong may be right to another. That's why there is such a blurry line between good and evil. Sometimes there are enough people who see one thing as bad and another as good. That's where norms start to formulate.

 

[DeliciousCake]

I have to go with RGB on this one. What is right and wrong are subject to your upbringing, morals, religion, etc. Yes, standards DO start to form when the majority begins to sway towards thinking one way. However, if the majority of the population started thinking that murder was perfectly ok, would that make it right in your own view?

we don't even know if our idea of right and wrong are actually right. it is a loaded question.

YOU know if YOUR view of right or wrong is correct because it is what YOU believe to be right or wrong. You may perceive someone's views of right or wrong as being incorrect based on your personal views, but that doesn't change how they perceive it.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

This subject is hard to explain. There's always going to be an argument against you here, because of reasons aforementioned. Right and wrong are a thing defined only by you. You can usually tell if you just did something horrible because you'd feel it in your gut. When you do something you shouldn't have, you usually don't feel good about yourself. If you do something good, then you usually feel good about yourself. Temporary vs. long-term happiness is also something to take into account. You may feel good doing a bad thing, but it won't last forever. Eventually you will feel bad for what you have done. I do think that there are situations(albeit only a few) where something is absolute right or absolute wrong, but all our decisions aren't that black and white. Most are in the gray areas where the line is more blurry than that.

 

[pockyD]

1 + 1 = 2 ?

 

[redgreenblue]

1 + 1 = 2 ?

Not if you interpret + as the boolean operation and.

 

[GhostAnime]

YOU know if YOUR view of right or wrong is correct because it is what YOU believe to be right or wrong. You may perceive someone's views of right or wrong as being incorrect based on your personal views, but that doesn't change how they perceive it.

that isn't what i specifically said. what i meant was that ultimately we'll never really know if our way is right or not; even if you think right and wrong are absolute.

When you do something you shouldn't have, you usually don't feel good about yourself. If you do something good, then you usually feel good about yourself.

so what about a criminal that feels nothing? what about the fact that i feel nothing for eating a hot dog today while a vegan is hurt by it?

 

[Kur]

I think you answered your question in your own post.

Murder. It is wrong to murder. But certain circumstances can prevail such as murder one person to save the lives of 1000 can be considered right, or even heroic. But murdering an innocent person just because you want them dead is wrong.

So murdering an innocent person for no reason other than you want them dead is always wrong.

If you are looking for examples of a definitive situation of right and wrong, then all you have to do is lay out the details and answer the question "Is this right or wrong?"

If you want to know just generalities, you have to specify how general you want to go. Is it always wrong to murder an innocent person for no reason? Is that general enough or do you want "Is it always wrong to murder?" Which is more general but I can go even further "Is it always wrong to kill?" Which can mean just about anything because the word "kill" instead of "murder" means we may not be talking about humans anymore. It could be animals, plants, or even bacteria.

But since you only asked for a definitive situation of right or wrong, then yes, it is entirely possible and pretty easy to come up with examples of both. You simply have to go into a little more detail.



And right and wrong are not defined by you. They are defined by the society you live in. Just because you go insane and think it is right to murder your neighbor, does not make it right. If you want it to be right, you have to convince the society you live it that it was right.

 

[pockyD]

Not if you interpret + as the boolean operation and.

...so if i interpret "the sky is blue" as "roses taste delicious" is it any less true?

 

[GhostAnime]

But murdering an innocent person just because you want them dead is wrong.

says who?

And right and wrong are not defined by you. They are defined by the society you live in. Just because you go insane and think it is right to murder your neighbor, does not make it right. If you want it to be right, you have to convince the society you live it that it was right.

argument ad populum.

 

[Kur]

says who?

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say here, but seriously, this is the real world, in the real world murdering an innocent for no reason is wrong. And it is wrong because the society we live in says so.

argument ad populum.

No.

This is not an argument ad populum because in this case society is really what decides what is right or wrong. Over time things that were once right become wrong and vice-versa. In the past it was considered wrong for a woman to wear low cut tops in public. It the past it was right to burn women at the stake for being a witch. Over time society has found one to be more acceptable and the other to be less acceptable.

Society as a whole decides what is right and wrong.

If I was using an argument ad populum, I would be saying "Society determines right from wrong because most people think that society determines right from wrong."


If I were to say that society determines who becomes president would you also accuse me of using an argument ad populum?

 

[GhostAnime]

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say here, but seriously, this is the real world, in the real world murdering an innocent for no reason is wrong. And it is wrong because the society we live in says so.

there are plenty of things society used to say that was right and wrong. yet, they constantly change. again, you're making the same fallacy.

If I were to say that society determines who becomes president would you also accuse me of using an argument ad populum?

no, because that's different. the public elects their representatives. this is actually something i can prove to you by simply having you watch the election process and seeing people vote.

however 'right' and 'wrong' aren't even tangible. they're just ideas in our head that come from how we were raised. they vary from person to person and there really is no way to prove what is right and wrong besides what the majority says, and that is the mistake you're making: only thinking about what the majority is saying.

 

[verditude]

The concepts of right and wrong are meaningless in and of themselves; as earlier noted in the thread, their meanings are contingent on societal context. So no, there is no situation that will always be definitively, universally considered right or wrong.

Of course, none of this applies within the Christian worldview. If right and wrong are definitively created by a self-contained, all-interpreting God, there is one true definition of right and wrong; however, due to the noetic effects of sin, we humans do not often think analogically to God's interpretation. We instead try to define the world in our own terms (think univocally), which results in subjectivism/relativism.

 

[GhostAnime]

even if you think it came from God, where did he get them from? why did he change them throughout the bible?

 

[redgreenblue]

...so if i interpret "the sky is blue" as "roses taste delicious" is it any less true?

well then it's only true to the people who interpret it, yes?

I guess what I'm trying to say is... even in so-called "moral absolutes" like murder, the interpreted morality of the action, its consequences, and its reasoning, is all dependent on who is observing the action. You can't say "murder is wrong, and everyone thinks so" because you think murder is wrong yourself. I myself am completely opposed to murder, and I'm pretty sure everyone would be if they were given the understanding people opposed to it have. However, murder happens everyday. I'm guessing most people regret it, but I'm sure some don't.

I was kind of expecting somebody to bring religion into this. Religion acts as kind of a blanket moral guideline. Anybody believing in that religion believes in the corresponding morals, like murder is wrong for example. I guess that's one advantage of religion.

 

[yossarian22]

Yes
A is A

But we are talking about morality...

even if you think it came from God, where did he get them from? why did he change them throughout the bible?

Ah, the infamous Euthyphro dilemma, albeit warped heavily.

Is this morally right because God commands it, or does God command the action because it is morally right?

A proponent of Diver Command Theory could take option number 1 and bite the bullet. If all God says is morally right, then it is possible to inflict suffering and still be in the moral right. It also makes the laws of morality arbitrary.

Or you can take option number 2, there is a moral law higher than God, so God is no longer the source of morality.

Anyhow, the answer to your question is still yes. All people can ever do is add a great deal of context to the situation. Of course a generalized law breaks down. For instance, is the killing of an innocent child morally correct when the killing offers no benefit?

I severely doubt that anybody is willing to say "Yes" to this. Those who do are in such an extreme minority that relativism can dismiss them.

And heh, it seems we have alot of relativists here. I wonder how many of you have realized all the implications of relativism.

 

[GhostAnime]

If all God says is morally right, then it is possible to inflict suffering and still be in the moral right.

this doesn't explain where it came from.

Or you can take option number 2, there is a moral law higher than God, so God is no longer the source of morality.

neither does this.

Of course a generalized law breaks down. For instance, is the killing of an innocent child morally correct when the killing offers no benefit?

I severely doubt that anybody is willing to say "Yes" to this. Those who do are in such an extreme minority that relativism can dismiss them.

and why should they be dismissed?

 

[OffTheChain]

There are two sides to every story but that only applies to some things, other things are just absolute.

As far as morality goes however I don't think there is, everyone is going to have their different opinion, what the majority thinks and what a select few think may be different but who's to really say they are wrong, a lot of things have come to be expected because thats how we are convinced to see it.

meh -.-

 

[Kur]

there are plenty of things society used to say that was right and wrong. yet, they constantly change. again, you're making the same fallacy.

I believe I brought that up in my post. Society changes what is right and wrong as time passes. therefor society decides what is right and wrong. That is what right and wrong are.

no, because that's different. the public elects their representatives. this is actually something i can prove to you by simply having you watch the election process and seeing people vote.

It is not different at all. The public elects their representatives just like the public decides what is right and wrong. If you want proof I can have you watch a court hearing play out and show you the jurors who decide if somebody did something wrong. I can also show you the countless laws written and followed by people. I can show you supreme court hearings which decide if certain things are right or wrong.

however 'right' and 'wrong' aren't even tangible. they're just ideas in our head that come from how we were raised. they vary from person to person and there really is no way to prove what is right and wrong besides what the majority says, and that is the mistake you're making: only thinking about what the majority is saying.

Not being tangible does not make them not real.

Yes they are ideas in our heads that come from how we are raised, what society we live in, and is proven by what the majority says.

And certain things do vary from person to person. I may think smoking weed is wrong but you may think it is right. But we can all agree that somethings are always wrong and some are always right. Even the people who do wrong and enjoy it, know it is wrong but just don't care, or get an extra kick just because it is wrong. Then again some people may think something is morally right while everybody else thinks it is wrong (murder of an innocent for pleasure) but that would not make it right, it would just mean that individual is a nut job.

Why is that not enough for you? It is what it is. Just because you can't put it under a microscope does not make it any less real.

If society says that murder of an innocent for the sake of pleasure is wrong, then it is wrong. It really is that simple.

 

[GhostAnime]

I believe I brought that up in my post. Society changes what is right and wrong as time passes. therefor society decides what is right and wrong. That is what right and wrong are.

but the fact that they constantly change means that society can't be a valid reasoning in deciding over what's ultimately right and wrong in the universe. what about other societies that disagree with us? are they anymore right or wrong? this fallacy just isn't cutting it.

If you want proof I can have you watch a court hearing play out and show you the jurors who decide if somebody did something wrong. I can also show you the countless laws written and followed by people. I can show you supreme court hearings which decide if certain things are right or wrong.

you still don't understand. these are people that are just getting sentenced for something the public THINKS is wrong, but they can't prove that it's wrong. they just feel that way; and just because they feel that way doesn't mean that it's wrong. all it is and ever will be is an opinion. popular opinions do not prove facts. that's the whole point of an OPINION.

But we can all agree that somethings are always wrong and some are always right.

no we can't. unless you can prove someway that you can.

 

[yossarian22]

this doesn't explain where it came from.

neither does this.

That was the bloody point. Both options suck.
Hence it is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. The proponent of Divine Command Theory can only dodge one horn before getting impaled by the other.

You just phrased the dilemma poorly. If we say "God is the source of morality", then you hit them with the other argument. Not some idiotic "What caused god" statement. But I digress,

and why should they be dismissed?

Because the majority is under no compulsion to accept the views of the minority without a compelling case.

 

[GhostAnime]

You just phrased the dilemma poorly. If we say "God is the source of morality", then you hit them with the other argument. Not some idiotic "What caused god" statement. But I digress

but that was my original question: the source. i have no clue what you're rambling on about but i'm just debating.

Because the majority is under no compulsion to accept the views of the minority without a compelling case.

the majority doesn't have anymore of a compelling case than the minority.

 

[Kur]

but the fact that they constantly change means that society can't be a valid reasoning in deciding over what's ultimately right and wrong in the universe. what about other societies that disagree with us? are they anymore right or wrong? this fallacy just isn't cutting it.

you still don't understand. these are people that are just getting sentenced for something the public THINKS is wrong, but they can't prove that it's wrong. they just feel that way; and just because they feel that way doesn't mean that it's wrong. all it is and ever will be is an opinion. popular opinions do not prove facts. that's the whole point of an OPINION.

no we can't. unless you can prove someway that you can.

But that is only how right and wrong exist. As opinions of the people. Once a consensus is reached that becomes the definitive 'right and wrong' of that society.

The topic of this debate was not to prove that something is right or wrong through out the universe, only that there is a definitive situation of right and wrong. There is no limitations on what scale, as far as to each person, to a society, to the planet, or to the universe.

Right and wrong exist only in our heads so that is what we have to work with. You can either accept that right and wrong are defined by society, or you can just do whatever you want and hope your case stands up in court.

Since right and wrong are only a popular opinion, then that is the only way to measure the rightness or wrongness of any given situation.

 

[GhostAnime]

actually the topic of debate is to prove that it exists.

 

[Kur]

actually the topic of debate is to prove that it exists.

Is there ever a definitive situation of right and wrong?

The topic of this debate was not to prove that something is right or wrong through out the universe, only that there is a definitive situation of right and wrong.

And you disagree with that on what grounds?



Since right and wrong are only concepts in our heads based on majority rule, then a definitive situation of right or wrong could only be attained by the same majority rule.

There is no other way to measure right or wrong so it can only be measured by majority opinion.

You have to use the right tool for the job. You can't measure weight with a ruler, you can't measure distance with a scale, and you can't measure right and wrong by anything other than popular opinion.

Since we now know how to measure right and wrong, we can now look for situations that a majority will always find right or wrong. Given enough details, I think we can easily find those situations.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I disagree that right and wrong are defined by majority opinion. I think the better measure is by some kind of aggregate happiness. That is to say, what is "right" for me is whatever makes me happy, and what is "wrong" is whatever makes me unhappy. So if anything "right" is what potentially creates net happiness, and "wrong" net unhappiness summed over everyone, with some things weighted differently and blah blah (so it's a continuum). In the context of human action of course; I can't very well call a natural disaster "wrong."

 

[GhostAnime]

And you disagree with that on what grounds?

when you ask if there is ever a definitive situation of right and wrong, my point still stands: you can't use the majority to prove it. it is a fallacy to do so. essentially asking what is definitively 'right and wrong' is hardly any different from asking what is right and wrong in spite of EVERYTHING.

Since right and wrong are only concepts in our heads based on majority rule, then a definitive situation of right or wrong could only be attained by the same majority rule.

but if it was definitive, then nobody would disagree.

You have to use the right tool for the job. You can't measure weight with a ruler, you can't measure distance with a scale, and you can't measure right and wrong by anything other than popular opinion.

you cant measure it with ANYTHING. 'right and wrong' don't even have scales like measurements; they're not even numerical. i can tell you how much i weigh and put myself on a scale to prove it to you.

but if i told you that slapping your teacher was wrong, there would be no way to really prove it to you besides a bunch of people agreeing with me. so what if they do? that doesn't prove anything the same way i prove how much i weigh.

but say i didnt have a scale to weigh myself. the majority of the people say i weigh <x> based on absolutely nothing. does that make them right? of course not.

so until you can find an actual way to measure it, you have no case.

 

[Kur]

when you ask if there is ever a definitive situation of right and wrong, my point still stands: you can't use the majority to prove it. it is a fallacy to do so. essentially asking what is definitively 'right and wrong' is hardly any different from asking what is right and wrong in spite of EVERYTHING.

but if it was definitive, then nobody would disagree.

you cant measure it with ANYTHING. 'right and wrong' don't even have scales like measurements; they're not even numerical. i can tell you how much i weigh and put myself on a scale to prove it to you.

but if i told you that slapping your teacher was wrong, there would be no way to really prove it to you besides a bunch of people agreeing with me. so what if they do? that doesn't prove anything the same way i prove how much i weigh.

but say i didnt have a scale to weigh myself. the majority of the people say i weigh <x> based on absolutely nothing. does that make them right? of course not.

so until you can find an actual way to measure it, you have no case.

I can't believe you still don't get it.


Of course right and wrong can not be measured numerically. Unless of course you survey people and rate the rightness or wrongness of something on a numerical scale.

And it is of course obvious that asking a majority of people will not give you your correct weight. But the correct weight of a person IS NOT DECIDED BY MAJORITY OPINION LIKE RIGHT AND WRONG IS.

Right and wrong can ONLY be decided by what your societies opinions of right and wrong are. That is it. Just because it can not be put on a scale does not make it false. You are asking me to measure something with a method that cannot measure it. You are asking me to measure your weight with a ruler and then telling me that weight can not be real because I can not measure it with a ruler.

And this is not a fallacy. I am not trying to prove something by asking a bunch of people what they think it true. I am simply pointing out that what is right and wrong in a society is decided by that society. This is a fact. Presidents are decided by majority, right and wrong are decided by majority.

 

[GhostAnime]

Of course right and wrong can not be measured numerically. Unless of course you survey people and rate the rightness or wrongness of something on a numerical scale.

then demonstrate the 'scale'.

And it is of course obvious that asking a majority of people will not give you your correct weight. But the correct weight of a person IS NOT DECIDED BY MAJORITY OPINION LIKE RIGHT AND WRONG IS.

i bolded and italicized the keyword here. do we use this word to decide numerical things? things that can be seen? observed? don't think so.

Right and wrong can ONLY be decided by what your societies opinions of right and wrong are. That is it. Just because it can not be put on a scale does not make it false. You are asking me to measure something with a method that cannot measure it. You are asking me to measure your weight with a ruler and then telling me that weight can not be real because I can not measure it with a ruler.

that is not what i asked. i asked you to measure it with anything that could work because you know opinions don't work with measurements so why should they work with right and wrong? simply repeating your mantra does not make it anymore true.

And this is not a fallacy. I am not trying to prove something by asking a bunch of people what they think it true. I am simply pointing out that what is right and wrong in a society is decided by that society. This is a fact. Presidents are decided by majority, right and wrong are decided by majority.

but i can see presidents decided. i can see my weight on a scale. i can see my height on a ruler. i cannot see this 'wrong' at all unless somebody tells me and that isn't enough to prove it to me. i would like a cogent argument in saying why something's wrong besides people's opinions, because if they don't work in proving anything else, then they most certainly don't work in 'right and wrong'.

this debate won't move on until you stop using fallacious reasoning.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

In reply to you on page one Ghost(I haven't been in here for a while):

I put the usually in the post that you quoted from me because of your argument against me. But still, do you think that criminals know the good side of life? This goes back to what I said about short term and long term happiness. Do you think that they are REALLY happy? I mean, they might be feeling alright at the moment, but they won't feel that way forever. They may not feel remorse for their actions, but they will always be less happy than a person like you or me. At least, that's what I would imagine. I can't know that for certain of course, because I've never asked a criminal that. This is an inference from...life, I guess. Movies and the news, etc. I don't know though. Do you think that they would be as happy as they COULD be doing what they do?

And remember, all of this is tied in to my personal beliefs in religion, so there will always be another argument against me.

 

[GhostAnime]

what does it matter if they're happy or not? how is that relevant in 'right and wrong'?

 

[Kur]

then demonstrate the 'scale'.

oh, i don't know, 1 to 10?

i bolded and italicized the keyword here. do we use this word to decide numerical things? things that can be seen? observed? don't think so.

No we do not use opinion to measure numerical things. But I already said that when I said we do not use opinion to measure weight. What we do use opinion for is determining right from wrong. Just because you don't like it does not make it not true.

that is not what i asked. i asked you to measure it with anything that could work because you know opinions don't work with measurements so why should they work with right and wrong?

Because it is the only way to measure it.

but i can see presidents decided. i can see my weight on a scale. i can see my height on a ruler. i cannot see this 'wrong' at all unless somebody tells me and that isn't enough to prove it to me. i would like a cogent argument in saying why something's wrong besides people's opinions, because if they don't work in proving anything else, then they most certainly don't work in 'right and wrong'.

Something is usually wrong when it causes some kind of harm to a person or group of people. However something things that cause harm to people are considered right because society has determined it so. So the only logical explanation for this is that society determines what is right and wrong.

You can not see right and wrong. So? You can't see funny, gross, beauty, good, evil, kind, sloppy or clean. Yet all of these things do exist and only as popular opinion. Of course everybody has their own idea of what those things are, but nothing is described as such unless a majority says so.

It is not my fault you refuse to accept the truth. Right and wrong exist as what majority says. There is nothing beyond that.

this debate won't move on until you stop using fallacious reasoning.

Actually this debate won't move on until you stop moving the gaol posts. Somebody asked who decides what is right and wrong and I gave the answer. You are the one being unreasonable, asking for more than there is.

 

[GhostAnime]

oh, i don't know, 1 to 10?

no, i mean a scale that logically measures right and wrong. not your opinion.

No we do not use opinion to measure numerical things. But I already said that when I said we do not use opinion to measure weight. What we do use opinion for is determining right from wrong. Just because you don't like it does not make it not true.

it has nothing to do with me not liking it or not; it has to do with your flawed reasoning. if it doesn't work for other things, it can't work here. you're being hypocritical about the fact.

Because it is the only way to measure it.

that doesn't mean it's a fact. if the only way to prove something is to see what somebody thinks, how does that make it anymore of a fact than somebody else's thoughts? there is no way to prove either wrong. when you use 'majority' reasoning, it is flawed because the majority could easily be wrong.

Something is usually wrong when it causes some kind of harm to a person or group of people. However something things that cause harm to people are considered right because society has determined it so. So the only logical explanation for this is that society determines what is right and wrong.

that isn't even a logical explanation. it is just a continuation of your flawed reasoning using opinions and ad populum. you've presented no facts; merely what the majority thinks.

You can not see right and wrong. So? You can't see funny, gross, beauty, good, evil, kind, sloppy or clean.

funny is merely a reaction. gross and beauty are subjective feelings. good and evil are pretty much 'right and wrong' painted with something else. sloppy and clean is actually observable.... (at least according to our interpretations).

you do not see right and wrong. you merely FEEL it. if i kill a person, for you to think it is wrong, you would have to FEEL it. simply seeing me do the act is simply seeing me kill a person. the wrong part comes in when you feel it.

Actually this debate won't move on until you stop moving the gaol posts. Somebody asked who decides what is right and wrong and I gave the answer. You are the one being unreasonable, asking for more than there is.

and my answer to his question is that nobody decides it. you are saying the majority decides it. does god exist because the majority says so?

 

[Kur]

no, i mean a scale that logically measures right and wrong. not your opinion.

The only way to measure right and wrong is by majority opinion. You can have the majority rate the rightness or wrongness on a scale of 1 to 10. This is perfectly logical because majority opinion is the only logical way to do it.

it has nothing to do with me not liking it or not; it has to do with your flawed reasoning. if it doesn't work for other things, it can't work here. you're being hypocritical about the fact.

Like I said, you have to use the right tools for the job. "if it doesn't work for other things, it can't work here." is complete conjecture on your part. You are simply stating something with nothing to back it up.

that doesn't mean it's a fact. if the only way to prove something is to see what somebody thinks, how does that make it anymore of a fact than somebody else's thoughts? there is no way to prove either wrong. when you use 'majority' reasoning, it is flawed because the majority could easily be wrong.

If the majority is wrong that only means they have the wrong idea about what is wrong. That could be said about somethings we observe in different cultures. In some societies it is acceptable and praiseworthy to stone a woman to death for leaving her house without a male family member to escort her. In our society that is completely wrong. If society does not decide what is right and wrong, which as it seems is completely subjective, then how do you explain that one culture can have such a vastly different opinion than a different culture? Oh wait, I said it. It is an opinion. Right and wrong is a completely subjective opinion. The only reason we don't stone women to death is because the majority of us find it completely wrong. The only reason they do stone women is because the majority of them find it perfectly acceptable. Society decides what is right and wrong.

that isn't even a logical explanation. it is just a continuation of your flawed reasoning using opinions and ad populum. you've presented no facts; merely what the majority thinks.

If you are going to accuse me of using a debate fallacy, then at least know what it is you are accusing me of. If I was using an argument ad populum, I would have to be saying "Right and wrong are decided by majority because most people think so." Which is not what I am doing. I am showing you time and time again that society decides what is right or wrong, not because most people think that is how it works, but because that is the only way we can define a completely subjective thing such as right, wrong, ugly, beauty, clean, dirty, dark, light, hot, cold, pain, pleasure, etc.

funny is merely a reaction. gross and beauty are subjective feelings. good and evil are pretty much 'right and wrong' painted with something else. sloppy and clean is actually observable.... (at least according to our interpretations).

That is my point. Subjective feelings can be defined if a majority of people agree on the feeling. It can be said that Lewis Black is a funny guy. And almost nobody would disagree with me. But you can not measure funny with some tool, it is completely subjective and of course there are people who do not get his humor, yet he is still considered a funny man. And sloppy and clean can not be observed because your idea of clean may be sloppy to me. My house is always kept clean, but compare it to a 'clean room' it is a disaster area.

you do not see right and wrong. you merely FEEL it. if i kill a person, for you to think it is wrong, you would have to FEEL it. simply seeing me do the act is simply seeing me kill a person. the wrong part comes in when you feel it.

Thank you for making my point for me, it is unfortunate you can't see it yourself.

and my answer to his question is that nobody decides it. you are saying the majority decides it. does god exist because the majority says so?

No, god does not exist because the majority says so. That argument has nothing to do with this because of reasons I pointed out earlier in this post. If nobody decides what is right or wrong, then how do we know what is right or wrong? It would have to be some sort of arbitrary outside source. But if that is the case then why do we all not agree on what is right or wrong? Why do some of us find it perfectly right to stone women in the street?

It is society that decides right from wrong. That is the only explanation that fits. Unless of course you can explain to me a better one.

 

[GhostAnime]

to avoid mass quoting, i'm going to state one point that's short: simply because you have no way to define it doesn't mean you have to go along with people's opinions. if the earth FELT flat, and the majority said it felt flat, but nobody could actually prove it, then is the earth flat?

you agree that the majority doesnt decide god's existence, but why do you backtrack and say that they can define morality? sure, they can ENFORCE it, but they cannot define it.

do you know what subjective means? if something is subjective, it isn't absolute by definition, thus, it depends. when it depends, it is relative. when something is relative, NOTHING can be ultimately defined right and wrong.

 

[Kur]

to avoid mass quoting, i'm going to state one point that's short: simply because you have no way to define it doesn't mean you have to go along with people's opinions. if the earth FELT flat, and the majority said it felt flat, but nobody could actually prove it, then is the earth flat?

you agree that the majority doesnt decide god's existence, but why do you backtrack and say that they can define morality? sure, they can ENFORCE it, but they cannot define it.

do you know what subjective means? if something is subjective, it isn't absolute by definition, thus, it depends. when it depends, it is relative. when something is relative, NOTHING can be ultimately defined right and wrong.

You are still missing the point. The Earth can be measured. It can be proven to be spherical. Hell if you go to certain places you can see the curvature of the earth. So asking a majority opinion does not make any sense. But right and wrong can only be ascertained by majority opinion in a given society. There is no other way.

And yes you are right. Nothing can be defined as ultimately right or wrong. but that was never the point here.

I said that the society you live in decides what is right and wrong. This does not mean that a society can say what is ultimately right or wrong, just what is right or wrong for their own society, whether that be 300 million people in the US or 40 people in some African tribe. Each society decides what is right or wrong for their society.

If you still do not agree with this, then why don't you tell me where right and wrong come from? So far you have only been stating that societies enforce right and wrong but you never have said where it comes from.