Give me a few examples on what you think is wrong and i'll try to show you that it is not truly wrong. Something 'wrong' is all a matter of perpective.
There is right and wrong. For example we have an equation: 5*x=20, saying that the solution to this equation is x=2 is erroneous, no matter how much you twist it. An other example: Bob wears a Red T-shirt. John is a Red-blind person, thus for him Bob's T-short is Green. He believes that the shirt is Green, according to his perspective the shirt IS Green, however the shirt is actually and as a matter of fact Red. Saying that the T-Shirt is Green is an erroneous answer.
Anyway there are some objective and universal truths/wrongs, but methinks the argument you are trying to make is that there are no objective, universal moral principles, right?
For morals, ethics, and laws, there is always an "other side" to things. These are just an evolution of society's progress. This is all just in a manner of perspective, as there are always differing viewpoints. It just matters when there is a group of people with the same viewpoints that either establish a place with their views or escape the one already made with conflicting and otherwise harmful others. I assume you're talking about this, Evan, because there are also irrefutable rights and wrongs, such as scientific, mathematical, and philosophical laws. I believe Goumas explained it enough there.
Then yes, you are correct. There is no objective morality, and thus right and wrong are relative terms unique to each individual, regardless of whether or not they are shared by others.
How about this? Since we can show rather definitively that there is no objective morality, let's see where people stand on one group forcing it's morals upon another.
I've always wondered where people stood on this, especially since it is all too common, especially in today's world. If right and wrong are all relative, and unique to each individual, by what authority or reasoning does one group decide upon, or force it's ideas on morality on another?
And, if this should not be done, how can we as a society go about accepting people of differing moral opinions? Or can that be done successfully?
For example, in my culture (and probably yours too) cannibalism is considered immoral and likely illegal. However we know that there are several social groups around the world who still practice it as a part of their culture. So, being that there is no objective morality, only differing opinions, do we (or they) have the right to force our morals on this subject upon these groups? And if not is there a way that both groups could coexist, while still honoring eachother's opinions?
Wrong can be defined as two things, logically and morally.
A "wrong" thing in the logical sense is that all cats are 200 lbs and eat only snake eggs. It obviously is not true.
Another "wrong" thing, but in the moral sense, is an act that is unnecessary and causes pain, example, walking down the street and shooting some random person. There was no reason, none can be justified, it was a senseless act that resulted in only pain.
There was no reason, none can be justified, it was a senseless act that resulted in only pain.
Think about doing that, it could be you doing it because you were extreamly bored, then you would get excitment from it. It might not be sensless because how would you think of shooting somebody if you didn't think about it. The thought process might be really quick but it still had to be processed first.
Think about doing that, it could be you doing it because you were extreamly bored, then you would get excitment from it.
The thing is, there's other ways to amuse yourself. What purpose did it serve that could not be accomplished by other means? Instead, you kill someone for no purpose. I could say I want 100million dollars, but that doesn't mean I go around cutting everyone's throat who has even one single dollar.
For example, in my culture (and probably yours too) cannibalism is considered immoral and likely illegal. However we know that there are several social groups around the world who still practice it as a part of their culture. So, being that there is no objective morality, only differing opinions, do we (or they) have the right to force our morals on this subject upon these groups? And if not is there a way that both groups could coexist, while still honoring eachother's opinions?
Generally, I would have to say that cannibalism isn't in itself a bad thing. You would do it to survive. However, if you have other sources of food, it is unecessary and thus immoral. Really it's not all that different from killing a cow and eating that...just how we view it.
And, if this should not be done, how can we as a society go about accepting people of differing moral opinions? Or can that be done successfully?
I think that it can be. For example, person A thinks it's wrong to eat meat. Person B doesn't care and eats primarily meat. Person A condemns Person B and they both avoid each other due to mutal dislike. Everyone can live together, no one said anything about being happy about everything, that's just being ignorant. It's how everyone responds. So when we all realize that attacking others for personal beliefs does absolutely nothing to convince the other person, and ends up causing pain, then we will have peace. Although that does not mean everyone is in candyland...
The thing is, there's other ways to amuse yourself. What purpose did it serve that could not be accomplished by other means? Instead, you kill someone for no purpose. I could say I want 100million dollars, but that doesn't mean I go around cutting everyone's throat who has even one single dollar
But what if that person wanted to try something new and relized that they never killed some1 before? that would be a reason for their action and you can't fake-experience killing some1
But what if that person wanted to try something new and relized that they never killed some1 before? that would be a reason for their action and you can't fake-experience killing some1
Now unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous. I really have no other way to say it than common sense...killing someone just for amusement obviously shows that there is something wrong with them, and if they "really" need to go kill someone, sign up for the army, or throw them in a mental hospital.
