Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → right, wrong

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Ramadan
by akay
Today at 01:22 PM
New Britain
Today at 01:13 AM
افضل الايام
by akay
March 10, 2025, 01:15 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
March 10, 2025, 10:35 AM
News From Syria
March 08, 2025, 02:50 AM
Russia invades Ukraine
March 06, 2025, 10:16 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
March 04, 2025, 09:03 PM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
March 04, 2025, 06:42 PM
Gaza assault
February 26, 2025, 09:25 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 23, 2025, 09:40 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
February 22, 2025, 09:50 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 22, 2025, 02:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: right, wrong

 (Read 25643 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #30 - May 19, 2010, 05:10 PM
    Quote from: Submissive Bob on May 19, 2010, 05:07 PM
    From my experience and observations parenting is a two person job, which in many cases can get done by one person with great difficulty. Like the accordian wings on my air conditioning unit in my house are all cracked and I've sealed them up with duct tape and they work fine and the house is cool but I would never buy one new like that.

    So my child rearing guide would say: This job is recommended for 2 qualified people. Do not attempt to do this alone, but if you end up alone then do your best.


    Ah, but to get back to IA's original point, wouldn't that then mean that having more than two caretakers (polygamy) is even better?  Smiley
    fuck you
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #31 - May 19, 2010, 05:21 PM
    You may have a point if it were like a Branch Davidian style of polygamy where all the mothers share raising the kids together.  In Islamic polygamy, the kids get one full-time mother and a part-time father.


    I still don't think it should remain illegal.
    My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah." -- Mike Tyson
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #32 - May 19, 2010, 05:23 PM
    My understanding was we were talking about polygamy in general. I think the old-school Mormons do it like the Branch Davidians too.
    fuck you
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #33 - May 19, 2010, 05:29 PM
    Quote from: Kenan on May 19, 2010, 12:34 PM
    Anything truly consensual is pretty much OK. Thereby paedophilia cannot be right by definition. Incest and polygamy are gray areas - it all depends on circumstances.



    I agree with this. If it's consensual, then I don't really have a problem but there could be some tricky situations or grey areas.
    Polygamy is fine as long as polyandry is allowed too, but a lot of the times, the men just want all the control (and the booty)
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #34 - May 19, 2010, 05:29 PM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on May 19, 2010, 03:27 PM
    In my opinion not everything that's bad is wrong.

    Polygamy= bad but not necessarily wrong
    Incest= bad but not necessarily wrong
    Pedophilia= bad and wrong

    By bad I mean undesirable/unacceptable/unhealthy. By wrong I mean it should be criminalized.


    You raised the important distinction, IA. That is, the difference between deontic ethics and virtue ethics.

    In the case of deontic ethics, i.e., ethics pertaining to moral duty, you have things like the duty or obligation not to commit murder, or steal. That is, the obligation not to violate the rights of another individual. But this discussion is about virtue ethics, as well as deontic ethics.

    Virtue ethics pertains more to ideal forms of behaviour rather than moral obligation. A virtue might be patience, a vice may be ignorance. In either case, however, from a deontic point of view, patience is not moral and ignorance is not immoral as it doesn't constitute an infraction against another individual.

    It may be that it is morally impermissible to engage in polygamy, from a deontic point of view, if it threatens, say, the development of children in a family. However, in the event that no-one is threatened as a result of this polygamy, it may still be considered wrong/vicious from the perspective of virtue ethics.

  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #35 - May 19, 2010, 05:57 PM
    Yeah I was gonna say that...  Tongue
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #36 - May 19, 2010, 06:19 PM
    Quote from: Zebedee on May 19, 2010, 05:29 PM
    You raised the important distinction, IA. That is, the difference between deontic ethics and virtue ethics.

    In the case of deontic ethics, i.e., ethics pertaining to moral duty, you have things like the duty or obligation not to commit murder, or steal. That is, the obligation not to violate the rights of another individual. But this discussion is about virtue ethics, as well as deontic ethics.

    Virtue ethics pertains more to ideal forms of behaviour rather than moral obligation. A virtue might be patience, a vice may be ignorance. In either case, however, from a deontic point of view, patience is not moral and ignorance is not immoral as it doesn't constitute an infraction against another individual.

    It may be that it is morally impermissible to engage in polygamy, from a deontic point of view, if it threatens, say, the development of children in a family. However, in the event that no-one is threatened as a result of this polygamy, it may still be considered wrong/vicious from the perspective of virtue ethics.






    Great point! I like that explanation. I shall remember it for future use Smiley
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #37 - May 19, 2010, 06:26 PM
    I think rights and wrongs should be determined through reason alone. This includes a good understanding of statistics and causality. Philosophy too can be included, but this gets over my head  and becomes impractical (at least for me in terms of eating meat!).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

    Consensus may not always be right and indeed I argue against it. Is the black sheep wrong if by reason it is right? How about Un resolution 3379 that equated Zionism as racism ? It took 16 years for it to be revoked. Which is sadly why I once thought the UN was an excellent thing, but the reality is some members don't have the same morals and principles and therefore the consensus of this particular group is unfortunately flawed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqCAg2tkUyw

    I am not going to discuss this point if I will be hurled with flying 4 F's.
    Hear ye -->> DONATE TO CEMB

    Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #38 - May 19, 2010, 06:37 PM
    Quote from: CocoPop on May 19, 2010, 06:19 PM
    Great point!


    Agreed.

    Quote from: HighOctane on May 19, 2010, 06:26 PM
    I think rights and wrongs should be determined through reason alone. This includes a good understanding of statistics and causality. Philosophy too can be included, but this gets over my head  and becomes impractical


    See, this is why I don't think you believe in or understand natural rights, despite your claims to the contrary. Between this post and an earlier post where you mentioned your preference for utilitarian analysis, it seems that you follow a strictly consequentialist form of ethics, whereas a belief in natural rights requires at least some deontological ethics.

    I'm not saying that no ethical decisions should be based on consequences, some should-- I think Zebedee was kinda on this track when he spoke of deontic and virtue ethics-- but what I am saying is that if one believes in natural rights, then many ethical decisions regarding those rights cannot be based exclusively, or even mostly (or perhaps even at all), on the consequences of respecting those rights.
    fuck you
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #39 - May 19, 2010, 06:48 PM
    While I agree that it's not 100% semantically correct to say Zionism is racism, I think there is some truth in that. Because it's discriminatory on the basis of religion and ancestry (i.e ethnicism if there is such a term).
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #40 - May 19, 2010, 07:36 PM
    Eh, yes and no. Zionism is nothing more than Jewish nationalism. Nationalism takes many forms, some more benign than others, but xenophobia, national chauvinism, bigotry, racism and jingoism are always lurking, waiting to take a hold of the nationalist movement, and they are always in play.
    fuck you
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #41 - May 19, 2010, 07:56 PM
    Quote from: Q-Man on May 19, 2010, 06:37 PM
    it seems that you follow a strictly consequentialist form of ethics


    Yes, you are right,  I wrote that I misunderstood the meaning of a "natural right".  015 I appreciate the correction.

    As to 46/86 which revoked 3379:
    Quote
    This formed resolution 46/86, which is one of the shortest in UN history. During this session, President Bush told the General Assembly:

        "...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."

    Hear ye -->> DONATE TO CEMB

    Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #42 - May 19, 2010, 08:01 PM
    Okay, hadn't seen that yet.
    fuck you
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #43 - May 19, 2010, 08:52 PM
    Quote
    This formed resolution 46/86, which is one of the shortest in UN history. During this session, President Bush told the General Assembly:

        "...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."

    That would be true if Zionism didn't have a strong religious tradition and they didn't obsess about the Land of IsraelTM. If I was living in the first half of the 20th century I would have most certainly supported the establishment of a state for the Jewish People. Why this land had to be the British Mandate of Palestine? apart from religious historical reasons I don't know. I mean why didn't they take Bavaria for example?
    Even with that, if I was living at the time of the Declaration of Independence I would've supported them as long as that wouldn't force millions to leave their homes and lands and business. Besides there are still significant poltical and religious factions in Israel who want to expand Israel to the Biblical Borders. I have seen numerous photos of Israeli leaders and Prime Ministers posing in front of such a map.

    To sum it up, I'm a moderate anti-Zionist.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #44 - May 20, 2010, 10:26 AM
    Quote
    I mean why didn't they take Bavaria for example?


    Would that have been any better?  Let's face it, short of sending all the Jews to the Moon, there isn't a place to create a Jewish state that wouldn't have caused conflict with somebody.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #45 - May 20, 2010, 01:32 PM
    Sure but the Arab/Muslim world is not the best option.

    Even with that, they managed to build a democratic, free, rich, technologically-advanced nation. They could've done so anywhere.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #46 - May 22, 2010, 04:12 AM
    the thread is not about zionist but about polygamy, incest and pedophilia. anyway, when i say consentual, i meant that they are REALLY in love, if it does happens. other then that, i think it's just wrong.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #47 - May 22, 2010, 05:00 AM
    Quote from: li on May 19, 2010, 12:22 PM
    Ever since i started to apostasize, i began to think what is right and what is wrong, and now i was thinking about incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Although i think that we should accept them as a human, i was thinking....is it right, or wrong? yet again, why should i be thinking about right and wrong?? what is your opinion? right, wrong as moral, immoral. And the line is becoming grey, is it better? or worse?

    There is no 'right and wrong'.  Just things you 'like' and 'don't like'.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #48 - May 22, 2010, 05:13 AM
    Here's my golden rule:

    1)consent  (not mentally challenged or inebriated)
    +
    2)adult  
    +
    3)no harm to others
    =
    Not wrong.  

    If the incestuous relationship is between a man and his underage daughter, then it's wrong and should be outlawed. If it was between two consenting adult siblings, it's not wrong and shouldn't outlawed.

    Same thing with polygamy. If there is no coercion and everybody is adult then I'm more than happy to allow them to enter any voluntary association they wish.

    Bestiality, wrong because we cannot establish the consent of the animal. However, if we could develop a method to verify that the animal is consenting, then it is not wrong and should be allowed on a case-by-case basis.
    Of course this is hypocritical of me because a cow or a chicken doesn't give us the consent to kill it and eat it. That's why my heart is vegetarian. It's just my stomach that is carnivorous.  grin12




    Quote from: sparky on May 22, 2010, 05:00 AM
    There is no 'right and wrong'.  Just things you 'like' and 'don't like'.

    With all due respect that's nonesense. Killing is always wrong with the exception of self defense. Rape is always wrong.

    Any action that infringes on the rights and freedoms of someone is wrong as long as that someone didn't infringe on the rights of other (killing an armed robber may not be wrong, jailing a convicted murder and taking away his freedom is not wrong).
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #49 - May 22, 2010, 05:37 AM
    Quote
    That's why my heart is vegetarian. It's just my stomach that is carnivorous.



    I am SO using that line!!  Afro
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #50 - May 22, 2010, 05:42 AM
    Quote from: li on May 22, 2010, 04:12 AM
    the thread is not about zionist but about polygamy, incest and pedophilia. anyway, when i say consentual, i meant that they are REALLY in love, if it does happens. other then that, i think it's just wrong.



    Excuse me, but are you implying consent = love?  Huh?

    You mean people cannot engage in a form of sexual intercourse if they aren't in love?
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #51 - May 22, 2010, 07:59 AM
    ermm...fuck. sorry? grin12
     as long as they don't disturb me, they are ok, ok?
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #52 - May 22, 2010, 08:10 AM
    hehehehe that's ok. I think we'd all mind if anyone's personal life intruded on our own.

    The consent = love bit just sounded a bit much to ask lol
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #53 - May 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
    Quote from: sparky
    There is no 'right and wrong'.  Just things you 'like' and 'don't like'.


    With all due respect that's nonesense. Killing is always wrong with the exception of self defense. Rape is always wrong.

    Any action that infringes on the rights and freedoms of someone is wrong as long as that someone didn't infringe on the rights of other (killing an armed robber may not be wrong, jailing a convicted murder and taking away his freedom is not wrong).


    Which sounds like a principle that you happen to like but not a reason to think that it is in any way true - which it would need to be for your statements above to be true.

    In addition, it sounds a bit unworkable to me.  Is it wrong for me to sit on the beach because it infringes on the freedom of someone else to sit in the same spot?
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #54 - May 22, 2010, 10:18 AM
    Quote from: sparky on May 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
    Which sounds like a principle that you happen to like but not a reason to think that it is in any way true - which it would need to be for your statements above to be true.

    In addition, it sounds a bit unworkable to me.  Is it wrong for me to sit on the beach because it infringes on the freedom of someone else to sit in the same spot?


    Just to use your example....

    No, because the other person has no particular right to that exact spot as said spot on the beach is not part of their property. If it were, then they could tell you to move.

    Because it isn't, however, they have no greater right to sit on that exact place than you do, and to remove you from that place would be an act of force, which wouldn't be justified.

    With regards to the infringement of rights and freedoms, it would constitute an infringement of a person's freedom to forcibly remove them from that place when the other person has no greater right to it. It would only be justifiable to forcibly remove a person from one's own private property or the like, because only in that case does the other person have any particular right to decide who is allowed on said property.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #55 - May 22, 2010, 11:05 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee
    Just to use your example....

    No, because the other person has no particular right to that exact spot as said spot on the beach is not part of their property. If it were, then they could tell you to move.

    Because it isn't, however, they have no greater right to sit on that exact place than you do, and to remove you from that place would be an act of force, which wouldn't be justified.

    With regards to the infringement of rights and freedoms, it would constitute an infringement of a person's freedom to forcibly remove them from that place when the other person has no greater right to it. It would only be justifiable to forcibly remove a person from one's own private property or the like, because only in that case does the other person have any particular right to decide who is allowed on said property.

    Note that I used the word 'freedom'.  I have no idea what a 'right' might be except for things that might be established by some kind of law and I would assume that making a law would not make something either right or wrong.

    So in the simple sense of 'freedom', if I sit somewhere on a public beach, I 'infringe someone else's freedom' to sit in the same place.  If I don't sit there, they would be free to sit there.  Because I do, they aren't and so their freedom is infringed.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #56 - May 22, 2010, 02:51 PM
    Quote from: sparky on May 22, 2010, 11:05 AM
    Note that I used the word 'freedom'.  I have no idea what a 'right' might be except for things that might be established by some kind of law and I would assume that making a law would not make something either right or wrong.

    So in the simple sense of 'freedom', if I sit somewhere on a public beach, I 'infringe someone else's freedom' to sit in the same place.  If I don't sit there, they would be free to sit there.  Because I do, they aren't and so their freedom is infringed.


    A 'right' in this context may simply be taken to be an asset/privilage that cannot be confiscated/abridged without justification. And of course, just because something is a law doesn't make it morally correct.

    Someone else doesn't have the freedom to forcibly remove you from that place, just as someone else doesn't have the freedom to steal your property.

    In this case, since the place in question is not the property of this individual, they have no more right to it than you do, and therefore to remove you from it constitutes an unjustified use of force.

    Their freedom is limited by your being in this place, but their freedom is also limited by their inability to, for example, take your property without your consent. Their freedom (I use 'freedom' here in the general sense) is 'infringed,' but their right is not as they have no claim to that spot on the beach, as it's not their property.

    Simply put, their freedom is limited, as freedom in the general sense is necessarily limited, but their rights are not infringed.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #57 - May 22, 2010, 06:10 PM
    Quote from: sparky on May 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
    Which sounds like a principle that you happen to like but not a reason to think that it is in any way true - which it would need to be for your statements above to be true.

    Not really. There are a lot of things I don't like but don't think should be outlawed. Incest is disgusting but I don't think it should be outlawed if it was between consenting adults.

  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #58 - May 23, 2010, 05:54 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee
    A 'right' in this context may simply be taken to be an asset/privilage that cannot be confiscated/abridged without justification. And of course, just because something is a law doesn't make it morally correct.


    Then you agree with me.  The existence of a right depends on the question of 'justification'.  If that is the case, it cannot be both dependent on what is right and wrong and determine what is right and wrong - that would be circular.  (This is somewhat implicit in the use of the word 'right', isn't it?)

    Quote from: Zebedee
    Their freedom is limited by your being in this place, but their freedom is also limited by their inability to, for example, take your property without your consent. Their freedom (I use 'freedom' here in the general sense) is 'infringed,' but their right is not as they have no claim to that spot on the beach, as it's not their property.

    Simply put, their freedom is limited, as freedom in the general sense is necessarily limited, but their rights are not infringed.

    We agree again.  My sitting on the beach infringes the freedom of another and, according to IA's definition, would therefore be wrong.  Hence it doesn't appear to be a very workable definition of right and wrong.  In a shared world, our very existence infringes the freedom of others and therefore it is wrong to even exist.

    Of course, this is all beside the point that the principle doesn't have any evidence to support it in the first place.  If it simply a 'preferred' principle, then it demonstrates my earlier claim that there is no right and wrong - only things that you like and don't like.
  • Re: right, wrong
     Reply #59 - May 23, 2010, 06:42 AM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
    Quote from: sparky
    Which sounds like a principle that you happen to like but not a reason to think that it is in any way true - which it would need to be for your statements above to be true.


    Not really. There are a lot of things I don't like but don't think should be outlawed. Incest is disgusting but I don't think it should be outlawed if it was between consenting adults.


    Firstly, we were talking about right and wrong - what do laws have to do with that?

    Secondly, the question was about whether there was any reason to think that the principle you identified for determining right and wrong was something that was true or something that you just happened to like.  If it is true, then there should be some evidence to show that it is true - i.e. part of reality.  If there is no evidence, then it can only be something that you happen to like - and my contention that there is no (moral) right and wrong would be correct.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »