If a child does something because they don't know any better, are they still wrong?
Bearing in mind that not many people in white society thought racism was wrong in the 1930s, could there be something we're doing today that would be considered wrong in 50, 70 or 100 years time?
We do not. There is no objective right or wrong, because Nature dictates that only the fittest survive amongst the weaker. Humans have developed right and wrong Ethics because we are an intelligent species that thrives on society. We have developed society so that we may be better off at survival compared to lone wolves and packs.
As we have observed and as you have observed yourself, ethics and morals do change over time.
An ignorant child knows no right or wrong, but parents and authority figures can and will teach the child immediately so that said child doesn't become a thorn later.
I imagine that yes, we would look back on our ways a century or two from now and think "what the hell were we thinking?". I imagine such traditions as abortion, illegal immigrant laws, and religion would change for better or worse in society's eyes later.
I think right and wrong are based off someone's morality. ( I think.) So then that would mean right and wrong are based on prespective and one persons idea of right isn't neccisarily the only idea.
but right and wrong is determined by authority, who generally determines that if it hurts someone, it isn't right. I would like to cite the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It's subjective to the society, although, I think there are a few things that are just born into us, like, causing someone pain for no reason is something that only people who have some sort of mental illness do. In no society do others just go up to another person and hit them in the face for absolutely no reason. Also, protecting children is in our nature as well, when most people look at a child/baby in danger they will help, even if it's not their own.
In no society do others just go up to another person and hit them in the face for absolutely no reason.
Right. Not even naturally do humans attack without reason. They would attack to benefit or to defend themselves--this being, of course, the ultimate moral conundrum. Unless your boredom resembles an octopus, in which you attack and kill to satisfy your entertainment. One of the major points in humans to develop society is to prevent this exact thing from happening. Religion plays a major role in early society, especially the "eternal suffering that no mundane action can equal" dictation and it helped shape ethics greatly. I think what I'm trying to get with this is that it was evolutionarily beneficial for humans to create society so as to create an intangible alliance with one another, thus boosting our population. Aiding children in need is tougher to explain, but this was also beneficial, seeing as how the almighty quote "children are our future" plays into effect here. They would grow up and statistically have more chances to breed, or in how instinct would see it "they are younger".
I believe right and wrong is individually perceived. It's like our own personal meter. I believe stealing is wrong, as does the majority of society: but is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving child wrong if it saves the childs life? Should that be treated the same way as stealing a pack of cigarettes just for the sake of it? To me, how "wrong" is dealt with is well, sometimes "wrong"
Society has moral standards of what is believed to be right or wrong, but it's all about the situation and the person involved, in my opinion.
Many people think abortions wrong, many people are pro choice. How do we know which is "correct"? Isn't it out belief that matters in what is deciding in this instance? Yet you can't apply that to shooting an innocent person.
Unless your boredom resembles an octopus, in which you attack and kill to satisfy your entertainment.
A Clockwork Orange? xD
Back to topic: I'll go again with Sam Harris' definition of right and wrong:
Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this worldâ"and there clearly areâ"then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
I believe right and wrong is individually perceived. It's like our own personal meter.
That would be pretty much the definition of subjective morality.
While still not objective we do have certain morals that have an evolutionary benefit. For instance if we spent time killing off each other in our own tribes (societies) this would be detrimental to ourselves as a species. So holding a moral that killing is wrong holds a benefit here.
I agree with Freakenstein. There is no objective right or wrong. Everyone has personal attitudes to this, and everyone has to learn first, from parents and family mainly, what is seen as good or bad. A child that isn't told, can't really tell the difference; though I suppose some reactions to certain situations are almost instinctive, but there's nothing that can't be trained/manipulated/overwritten.
