What *exactly* is 'right' and 'wrong'?

[DeM0nFiRe]

Ok, so this is a discussion that was spamming up the IRC channel so we decided to bring it to a thread. My position is that there is no such thing as "fundamentally right or wrong." The first thing I would say is that Existence is relative, therefore everything is relative. As rexxz pointed out, this is unfalsifiable so I will use a better argument.

The ideas of right and wrong are just that-- ideas. Since an idea is not an assertion of any sort, it can not be correct or incorrect (these two words having the common definition in this sentence). One definition of idea I found (in the American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition), and one I believe fits this context very well, reads as follows:

"Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity." (By the way, I'd like you to take note of the fact that the definition qualifies the term existence, as existence is relative )

So Right and Wrong are just that, products of mental activity. If in one other persons mind, Right (Morally, Scientifically, Mathematically, whatever) means something different than in anyone's or everyone's mind, both ideas are still ideas. Since an idea is merely a product of mental activity, there is no quality of an idea. It simply exists or does not exist (or has the potential to exist ) it is an idea or it is not. Therefore, in their lack of quality, each idea of Right is equal to the other.

I could also argue that since Right and Wrong are ideas, Right and Wrong have no practical place in the world since you can't judge the viability of one idea by another idea, but I'm not trying to argue that aspect of this. If we run dry on the first argument, we can go there .

On the notion of "fundamental" I would like to bring in another definition, from the same dictionary:

"Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary"

This would mean that at the lowest or smallest step you can be at, something would be Right or Wrong and there is no interchangability (not a word, but you get the idea) with right and wrong. But again, since ideas have no qualities other than existence or a lack thereof, any idea can replace any other idea.
(if you plan on saying the idea of a banana is not interchangeable with the idea of Right, I would like to say yes they are because logic is still just a series of common ideas. Claiming that logic and right and wrong are fundamental simpy because there is a common idea that many associate with the word would be a logical fallacy, "Ad Populum" Google it )

 

[RavenTDA]

IMO no action is ever so black and white like that. Right and wrong are realtive. But for the sake of setting up rules of society basically it's wrong if you are hurting anyone. Other than that it's okay.

Are you talking about in terms of society or the meaning of themselves? In actually anything when broken down or analized that much can just go to bollocks so sometimes it's best not to over think things.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

The ideas of right and wrong are just that-- ideas. Since an idea is not an assertion of any sort, it can not be correct or incorrect (these two words having the common definition in this sentence). One definition of idea I found (in the American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition), and one I believe fits this context very well, reads as follows:

"Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity."

Discarding what we think of as right and wrong in moral terms, there are objective facts regarding what is right and wrong within our scientific observations of the world. These accepted propositions are based on our current understanding of the world, and although are not 100% completely unfalsifiable, they are the absolute greatest and most logical form of understanding we have. So for all purpose, we can claim there are ideas (theories, and laws) that are also assertions.

So Right and Wrong are just that, products of mental activity. If in one other persons mind, Right (Morally, Scientifically, Mathematically, whatever) means something different than in anyone's or everyone's mind, both ideas are still ideas. Since an idea is merely a product of mental activity, there is no quality of an idea. It simply exists or does not exist (or has the potential to exist ) it is an idea or it is not. Therefore, in their lack of quality, each idea of Right is equal to the other.

What you are suggesting here is solipsism, which is an inherently unfalsifiable and unarguable philosophical standpoint, and adheres to a logical fallacy of begging the question. The existence of other minds and an external world independent of your mind is a much more economic hypothesis. Also, take note of Ockham's Razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. There is absolutely no motivation to even take solipsism seriously.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

@rexxz:
Well, everything that you just said is just as unfalsifiable as what I said. In fact, to say that anything is unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable because until it is proven wrong, we think of it as unfalsifiable. I know this is circle logic here, but sometimes circle logic is the only way to explain something like this in general enough terms that do not make assumptions. Like you said, Ockham's Razor, we want to make as few assumptions as possible. To say that anything is unfalsifiable is to assume there is no way that we don't know of to prove it wrong. To make things simpler we do not throw away assumptions, we make assumptions. Of course it is easier to assume that doing this is right and doing that is wrong, and for our intents and purposes that works just fine. However to say something is "Fundamentally" right or wrong is just inaccurate and, dare I say it, unfalsifiable

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Nothing I said is unfalsifiable, if you'd care could you point to specific examples? Solipsism absolutely on every term is unable to be proven wrong or right, so the intellectually honest thing is to disregard it.

Here is a thought game for you. I can prove that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Believe for a moment that you can leap over your house unaided. If you can not, then you will realize that propositions on physics are not simply a matter of human opinion, or ideas. These are observed truths.

"To say that anything is unfalsifiable is to assume there is no way that we don't know of to prove it wrong"

No, we can a posteriori determine if a proposition is or isn't falsifiable

"To make things simpler we do not throw away assumptions, we make assumptions."

So?

"However to say something is "Fundamentally" right or wrong is just inaccurate and, dare I say it, unfalsifiable"

What is unfalsifiable is the realist theory of truth you adhere to, not wether a given proposition is or isn't true according to it. Also, by saying that "to say something is "fundamentally" right or wrong is just innacurate" is to contradict yourself, what absolute grounds do you have if you're into full relativism to claim that it is innacurate for something to be "fundamentally" right or wrong?

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

That is a very good point, however I cannot play that game. I cannot truly believe that I can jump over a house unaided. I can neither prove nor disprove this point because if I saw someone who believed he could jump over a building, I would not believe that I would see him do it. Now, this is circle logic but I think it shows how your point, too, begs the question.

As for disregarding something that is unfalsifiable, maybe it is "Intellectually honest" to do so, but if you really want to get to the bottom of this, you cannot because it is not proven false. In any case, you do not necessarily have to prove that it is false, just that the opposite is true. We understand everything by its opposite, so if we can prove that one exclusive clause is true, the other has to be false.

as for my comment about assumptions, you said:

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. There is absolutely no motivation to even take solipsism seriously.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

That is a very good point, however I cannot play that game. I cannot truly believe that I can jump over a house unaided. I can neither prove nor disprove this point because if I saw someone who believed he could jump over a building, I would not believe that I would see him do it. Now, this is circle logic but I think it shows how your point, too, begs the question.

Explain how this shows that my point begs the question.

As for disregarding something that is unfalsifiable, maybe it is "Intellectually honest" to do so, but if you really want to get to the bottom of this, you cannot because it is not proven false. In any case, you do not necessarily have to prove that it is false, just that the opposite is true. We understand everything by its opposite, so if we can prove that one exclusive clause is true, the other has to be false.

You realize that by saying Nothing is absolutely true is an absolute statement? It shows the whole position of solipsism is a contradiction and also follows a pattern of circular logic. Two very dire fallacies.

as for my comment about assumptions, you said:

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. There is absolutely no motivation to even take solipsism seriously.

Still, what relevence does this have to my statement?


I have to say this: In order for knowledge, science or just about any human activity, we need to make assumptions. The business is choosing wisely your premises.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Oh, I did not say that it was a bad thing that we made the assumptions, I say it is a bad thing that we absolutely disregard this position of the argument.

As for the assumptions and the Razor, you said that according to Ockham's Razor, to solve a problem we must make less assumptions. Well I think you just agreed that we make assumptions and therefore have not solved the problem.

As for begging the question, I am saying that you assume that because we will not see a person jump a building they believe they will jump over, that automatically means they did not jump over them. What is sight and it's perception? It is a series of electric impulses that we have seen able to go wrong and show things there that are not there by any other senses, or visa-versa.

As for Nothing is true, I do not believe I said that nothing was true (if I did it was a mistake) My position is there is no "fundamental" right, because fundamental assumes that at the base, meaning there are no variables, something is right.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Fundamental right = truth. It is the same thing in this context. Either way you are making an absolute claim in stating there is no absolute fundamental right.

As for my proposition about the person jumping over the building, it didn't have anything to do with seeing them. It is simply to demonstrate that there are absolute truths, such as many of our propositions of physics.

Also: "As for the assumptions and the Razor, you said that according to Ockham's Razor, to solve a problem we must make less assumptions."

No I did not.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

No I did not.

Also, take note of Ockham's Razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

Yes you did

Ok, so if we do not count seeing a person jump over a building simply because they believe it, then why would you say that they didn't? What would tell you that they didn't jump over the building?

Again, you are assuming what I am saying. I did not say I did not make an absolute statement, you had just credited me with the wrong statement. I am making an absolute statement that there is no fundamental right, by our definition of fundamental.

Please consider the following and respond to this:
Fundamental by our common definition implies that there are no variables, and regardless of any factors it is what it is and it does not change. Human thoughts and opinions and ideas, however, are variables. Therefore nothing that is artificial (like Right and Wrong) can be fundamental.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

No I did not.

Also, take note of Ockham's Razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

Yes you did

That is absolutely not the same claim as : "you said that according to Ockham's Razor, to solve a problem we must make less assumptions." Please re-read the principle of the razor.

Ok, so if we do not count seeing a person jump over a building simply because they believe it, then why would you say that they didn't? What would tell you that they didn't jump over the building?

The absolute truth of physical science propositions.

Again, you are assuming what I am saying. I did not say I did not make an absolute statement, you had just credited me with the wrong statement. I am making an absolute statement that there is no fundamental right, by our definition of fundamental.

Making the statement that there is no fundamental (universal) right is making a fundamental (universal) claim in itself. Again, it is a contradiction

Please consider the following and respond to this:
Fundamental by our common definition implies that there are no variables, and regardless of any factors it is what it is and it does not change. Human thoughts and opinions and ideas, however, are variables. Therefore nothing that is artificial (like Right and Wrong) can be fundamental.

Our thoughts and ideas lead to observations which have been proven to hold absolute truths, beyond our ideas.

 

[Xilef]

The only judges of right and wrong are the on-lookers and that is still kept to personal beliefs.
Humans are supposed to have the gift of reasoning given by the gods, so deciding right and wrong for yourself is right aslong as you reasoned with your thought.
EDIT: The above may even include people not believing the world is round and people believing they can fly.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

And here we have your side of Unfalsifiable points. To say that a scientific truth is a fundamental truth is to assume that humans are capable of deciding what is fundamental truth because we are the ones who are perceiving these truths. You and scientists are the ones who say that the truths are fundamental. Now we are really going in circles. Human thoughts and ideas are not constants and are not fundamentally true, even if every single human agrees on it. You still will not prove to me that a human can be fundamentally right. If a human cannot be fundamentally right, what we observe cannot be fundamentally true. We can believe absolutely that is true, but that does not mean it is absolutely true. Therefore, what we say is absolutely true is only absolutely true as long as we agree that it is. For example, proof within the means of past times indicated that the earth was absolutely in the center of the universe. Later proof indicated that it was absolutely the sun. Current theories (at least we have the deceny to call them theories) indicate that the sun is probably not at the center of the universe, but since the universe may or may not be infinite, the sun could be at the center of the universe along with every other object in the universe.

AS for Ockham's razor, I just re-read it and saw that it does qualify by saying "should". However, your arguments definitely do not follow Ockham's razor since they make many more assumptions than mine do.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

I've already addressed the points you're repeating, so I won't repeat myself.

As far as Ockham's Razor goes, none of my arguments are based on assumption, they are based on observation and analysis. You're the only one making an assumption here of solipsism.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

But you assume that your powers of observation and analysis are infallible! That is unfalsifiable, and by your own account is unarguable. You are repeating yourself. I was trying to re-word my argument, but you are using the same words now. So stop dodging around my question (that I am asking for the third time)

How can a fundamental truth be comprehended if human ideas or not fundamental?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Something can only be wrong if there is someone to waggle their finger at it, else it is the most acceptable and correct action to take.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

For the sake of argument can we change right and wrong to good and evil?  Does everyone agree that would be the same thing?

could right and wrong be something defined by God?

This would mean any action(s) that fall into the catagory of sin would be wrong.  Anything that follows the will of the Creator would be right.

On the other hand if right and wrong are defined by community and belief, you would find a plethora of varying ideas on what is good and evil.  Meaning everyone is right and everyone is like a god.  Could this be the meaning of Genesis 3:5? 

I find it hard to believe in the latter, because nobody I know or have ever heard of has ever done anything like creation.  Everything we create is created with things that already exist.  The power to create something from nothing would be amazing.

 

[Surmuck]

Most, I stress the word, most most people decide in their head what is right, and what is wrong. Stealing is wrong, charity is right. The list goes on - but, as my nerdy side is clearly going to drive tonight - I think I've got my own opinion to lend here on how right is sometimes wrong, and wrong is sometimes right.
The Jedi (oh yes, those lightsaber-carrying tree huggers) said that every choice you make creates an echo in the force. Basically this is saying that the choices you make can have repercussions that can travel, and travel and travel. For example, and I wouldn't doubt at least someone out there will recognize this - say you were to give a bum some loose change - say right outside of the homeless shelter or something. (Gross generalizations could be made if you read into my words too hard, so just don't please.)
Say this bum, after thanking you - then gets jumped for the money you gave him. So, right there I have just greyed the line between right and wrong - using two of the larger generalizations among people. Does the fact your act of kindness caused this homeless man harm make it 'wrong'? Does the fact that you did indeed give him that money make it right? And the blame shift to the man who stole from the other?
It all comes down to we're all trying to survive. In the end, there is no right - and no wrong. Just the consequences we suffer or enjoy for the actions we make; and then the residual impact it leaves.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Actually you did not blur anything.
The generalized You went and did something good.
The generalized They went and did something bad.  They would have done bad with or without You or Your involvement.  Your involvement just happened to carry an easy target nearby, one that might've just saved a life of someone else.

You can't blur the lines.
You gave a bum money.  Said bum spends it on alcohol at a local convenient store.  Said bum gets drunk and causes an accident when crossing a street tumbling around and causes someone to crash, and when they do they kill a little girl.
By that logic You caused the death of the girl.  So did the convenient store, so did the person driving the car, so did the person making a car - you have no right, you only have wrong.

The convenient store clerk could be working to fund a genocide somewhere in the world and the change you gave the bum was given to the cause when he bought a 40, that doesn't make the bum a person guilty of genocide, nor does it make You.  All it shows it that affects occur.

No lines blurred in any way.  Responsibility to one is responsibility to one, not the thousandth and one removed from that first one.  Even Genghis Kahn could not be blamed for everything that his soldiers did, or the thousands of diseases and pox that could have spread.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Well, I think that for the most part, the difference between 'good and evil' is accepted to be in the eye of the beholder. I am saying that there is no way that humans can say there is a fundamental right (a scientific truth is often called funamentally right, rexxz said this was so). I say there is no way a human can say there is a fundamental right because the human race as a collective is not infallible. The scienific truths we use help come up with an understanding of how things work, but that does not mean it is right. Just because our tests come up with answers that work with our other tests does not mean they are right. I have used scientific and mathematic methods before to come up with the sam answer from many different angles, and my answer fit with other forumulae and I was still able to come up with answers. However, my answers may not have been the same as the common answer. I discovered my answer in the same manner the common answer was discovered, yet mine is wrong.

In IRC Sophist began to suggest that even moral values were not totaly relative, because he said there has to be some sort of moral right and wrong to use as a guideline, and that even these morals are testable. But consider this example:

A politician who affected great change in the world is viewed by half of the world as morally right and by half the world as morally wrong. The only test that we have to determine this individual's case is the same way we always determine morals, by popular belief (which in itself is a logical fallacy, but we will continue with it anyway). By popular belief, this individual is neither right or wrong, and our test tells us that every piece of data we tested was incorrect and therefore does not give us a solid conclusion-- in other words the data we tested is untestable. So in order to come up with an explanation of the morality of this individual, we cannot test anything that we can percieve. We can create a theoretical expiriment where look at that individual's thoughts of other people and the world and look at what the people of the world would think about what he thinks. But then to determine whether these people are correct about his morality, we must examine them in the same way, and this creates an inexhausable supply of expirements we must test to explain his morality. In short, we cannot test his morality and come up with a solid conclusion on his morality. In a totally testable environment, he is inexplicable. In a relative environment, morality is in the eye of the beholder.