Right or Wrong - who determines that? - Page 11

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Originally posted by: lighthouse

lol. sure. all it takes is to have one's basic fundamentals down right. think right, feel right, see right, do right, smell right, and have all the ducks lined up right, no? 😛😆

in fact, most of the problems we have with fanatics in the bigger world is that they see the right way- just happens to be the right they see.😉😆

Edited by chatbuster - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

- The fetus example is just used as an example to illustrate the various questions and processes involved when society and individuals address moral concerns. While debating the ethics of 'taking a human life' opens a Pandora's box - euthanasia, war, death sentence, negligent homicide, self defense and a lot more; yes but this is every moment happening.. why it can even be argued that inaction on our part to do something is indirectly responsible for death of people dying of starvation. passivity doesnt constitute a moral statement either for or against.. When we shed our primitive behavior we generally talk about being actively moral.. not passive about interactions...

- How are morality and humanity separated? humanity is largely allowing and helping fellow beings to breathe and have no actions directly taking the individual towards death... morality rises above this base concept at times when people "sacrifice" though most often morality is a subset ot humanity..

- You say always A and occasionally B or C. Can you elaborate on the statement. In society where do we see a situation that is always 'A' ? Can you express a justifiable cause on why there is only 'A' and what determines 'A'?not ocassionally, seldom B or C... See if the morality changed every instant and with every circumstance.. it would be undefined today after so many years.. and people wouldnt be behave similar..

- You say life is not circumstantial? How do you explain every situation to be equitable and to warrant the exact same cause effect and treatment? Every situation falls in a domain which encompasses morality as initially defined.. so again it becomes a subset of every action which is one reason we dont have to check the propriety of every action we do...Do you interact the same way with a 5 year old and a 50 year old? Yes again this is the subset superset relation....whether its a 5 year old or 50 year old.. you might refer to different zones of morality but you dont transgress the domain... and much of it comes from extrapolation.. for eg.. you will offer a 50 year old a glass of wine.. but not to a 5 year old - not because there is a written rule that 5 year old shouldnt consume alcohol.. but you extrapolate the moral propriety. the point is in every situation you suspect you might extrapolate but you never transgress...Now for the exception.. though normally we could be appalled by sexual acts for a 12 year old.. I would never take it a moral issue if the girl is terminal and two years to live... and she wants to participate in a sexual act... thats not making morality circumstantial its just morality verging on the boundary of humanity... When you eliminate circumstance the events preceding and resulting in an act and the outcome is inconsequential, only the act holds consequence. Agreed the important part here is the act happens with domain of morality... not arbitrary...when guys come home.. they might take off their tee's and sit topless.. women dont do the same.. however morally liberated tehy might make themselves to be....Taking life will be taking life - a murderer is the same as a 5 year old who accidentally pulled the trigger on a gun that was lying around because apart from the act of 'taking life' every bit of factor like age, intent, situation, mental capacity etc is purely circumstantial and has no standing. Again taking life is not totally immoral.. iraq is a good example.. hitler did genocide..but bush is doing worse... and circumstantial occurence of a homicide shouldnt be confused with its moral implication......How is this outlook a rational and justifiable outlook to life?

- One persons not sympathizing with a rape victim proves the point how the determinants of right and wrong vary. Not really its the evolution and seudo intellectuals... who make this that way.. Most gals according to strict moral standards dont hangout after dark or inadvertantly end up provoking inebriated individuals.. gals who prefer to hang out at dark.. become responsible for their acts and might provoke some individuals into primitive acts.. again not morally wrong.. but inappropriate.....Society varies in their judgment of situations and each individual within a society differs too and the individuals and society are constantly influencing each other. Only todays junta engages in this kind of grey areas.. if people stick to rules firmly.. just like they stick to the "law" that would make the society much better place....😊

- You have made a lot of claims and statements I am curious to know what premises your conclusions are based on and how are they deduced. Some are deduced.. some are premises.. you need to pick the right one at the right time.... Hinduism and islam have classic interpretations of morality... but again just cos some people misinterpret them doesnt make it invalid or excessive... again I dont wanna get religion here since religion propagate the implication of moral principles.. Surprising isnt it though the religions differ, the demography differs.. there are somethings common to everybody in the world...what mechanism they use to impose them is seldom relevant...

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Some are deduced.. some are premises.. you need to pick the right one at the right time.... Hinduism and islam have classic interpretations of morality... but again just cos some people misinterpret them doesnt make it invalid or excessive...

first, all those wonderful underlying principles aside, different religions are often at loggerheads regarding which God is the right one to worship. no consensus there. what's right for one guy is wrong for another.😉

second, you are supporting what we've been saying all along- these things are subject to different interpretations, even wrong ones. now unless someone is wilfully misinterpreting their own religion, we have to believe that people are genuinely mistaken as to what is right/ wrong. means it aint that easy to figure out.😉

again I dont wanna get religion here since religion propagate the implication of moral principles.. Surprising isnt it though the religions differ, the demography differs.. there are somethings common to everybody in the world...what mechanism they use to impose them is seldom relevant...

lol. that's like saying something like 95% of the human DNA sequence is identical to that of the chimpanzees, so there should be no scope for mistaken identity.😆 misses the fact that while there may only be a few variables in life and only a few differences superficially, there is actually a huge set of different permutations on those basic common variables, making us all different. cant crudely reduce everything/ everyone/ all religions down to common basic factors/ principles. that misses the infinite variety around us. devil is in the detail, and that's what leads us all to proclaim we have our own right from wrong.😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

lol. that's like saying something like 95% of the human DNA sequence is identical to that of the chimpanzees, so there should be no scope for mistaken identity.😆 i dont know why you laughing.. people seldom laugh on their misinterpretations...😆misses the fact that while there may only be a few variables in life and only a few differences superficially, there is actually a huge set of different permutations on those basic common variables, making us all different. no thats just doing some math sitting on some ivory tower atop the everest..😆cant crudely reduce everything/ everyone/ all religions down to common basic factors/ principles. that misses the infinite variety around us. devil is in the detail, and that's what leads us all to proclaim we have our own right from wrong.😉 actually you can.. since like dewey also mentioned above.. religions might differ in their practices.. the underlying beliefs remain the same...i mean the beliefs of whats moral and whats not...

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

passivity doesnt constitute a moral statement either for or against.. When we shed our primitive behavior we generally talk about being actively moral.. not passive about interactions...

hmmmm...lets take the "cheating" example here as it is a favorite topic of so many here😆

so if someone did not cheat because they never got an opportunity or never got to know anyone interesting or were never approached by anyone because they r butt ugly and viciously mean then they r immoral because they r not "actively" moral? yaar, majboori ka naam mahatma gandhi. lets face it, zyadatar log imaandar hotey hain tab tak jab tak unhey baimaani ka mauka naheen milta. still, can't be judging them actively or passivly moral.

see qwertoo, whether someone is moral or immoral is again subjective. u will see loads of pativrata naris who do not cheat but go around making life absolute hell for their pati and his family. would u call them moral?

when u work wth so many ifs and buts and constraints then how can u maintain rights and wrongs r absolute? yaar, tumharey examples bhi tumhara claim refute kartey hain.

humanity is largely allowing and helping fellow beings to breathe and have no actions directly taking the individual towards death...

huh? when slavery was practiced, the masters let their slaves breathe. how human was that? going by ur earlier logic of absolute rights and wrongs, even if someone indirectly causes a fellow human's beings death then they shd be responsible. can't keep on changing ur stance when it suits u buddy.

morality rises above this base concept at times when people "sacrifice" though most often morality is a subset ot humanity..

agree on morality being subset of humanity.

as far as the relationship or distinction between the two....well, how i see it......morality takes a backseat when humanity is in danger...and that happens in extreme situations. therefore, morality can't be black and white.....it is circumstancial and has huge grey areas.

not ocassionally, seldom B or C... See if the morality changed every instant and with every circumstance.. it would be undefined today after so many years.. and people wouldnt be behave similar..

but it does chnage qwerty. it changes across the globe and it changes over time. how could a mere sub-set be absolute. if anything, humanity is absolute but morality is subjective.

as far as defined or undefined, like we said before, people judge and define morality based on how they lead their life. they lead their life based on what they think is right for them. they form that thinking based on what goals they have in mind for themselves. on top of all this, different situations demand different approaches. even though morality is defined today, it does come with lot of various clauses and disclaimers....just so that it could be adapted to each unique case on a case by case basis. no b/w application like u and lh are maintaining in ur arguements here.

Every situation falls in a domain which encompasses morality as initially defined..

...so, u r agreeing that morality is defined based on each and every domain it is applied for!!! if yes, then the debate shd end here😛😆

so again it becomes a subset of every action which is one reason we dont have to check the propriety of every action we do...

Yes again this is the subset superset relation....whether its a 5 year old or 50 year old.. you might refer to different zones of morality but you dont transgress the domain... and much of it comes from extrapolation.. for eg.. you will offer a 50 year old a glass of wine.. but not to a 5 year old - not because there is a written rule that 5 year old shouldnt consume alcohol.. but you extrapolate the moral propriety.

lets just stick to the 50 yrs old and alcohol. the studies now show that alcohol, if consumed in moderation, is actually good for one's health. now, the impact would be that societies/people who initially considered touching alcohol "immoral" may think about taking a sip or two just to lead a healthier life style. now...were they "moral" before and "immoral" now??? now, lets tie it back to the rights and wrongs that we discussed before. were they doing right before or doing right now? did the definition of "right" just changed for them or not?

see, there r no absolute rights or wrongs. there can't be any absolute rights or wrongs.

the point is in every situation you suspect you might extrapolate but you never transgress...Now for the exception.. though normally we could be appalled by sexual acts for a 12 year old.. I would never take it a moral issue if the girl is terminal and two years to live... and she wants to participate in a sexual act... thats not making morality circumstantial its just morality verging on the boundary of humanity...

Agreed the important part here is the act happens with domain of morality... not arbitrary...when guys come home.. they might take off their tee's and sit topless.. women dont do the same.. however morally liberated tehy might make themselves to be....

in northeast, there r certain tribes where they must cover their faces but they really do not bother much about their boobs showing. in fact, u'll find women there with exposed boobs but covered faces. they will be considered immoral if their faces r exposed.....now u tell me who's more "moral" here? diff societies have different definitions of morality when it comes to culture, customs, rituals. the ten commandment stuff may be viewed similarly but it is not applied absolutely as different situations ask for different measures...as we have discussed before.

Again taking life is not totally immoral.. under certain circumstances...otherwise it is not only immoral but inhuman too. iraq is a good example.. hitler did genocide..but bush is doing worse... and circumstantial occurence of a homicide shouldnt be confused with its moral implication......

Not really its the evolution and seudo intellectuals... who make this that way.. Most gals according to strict moral standards dont hangout after dark or inadvertantly end up provoking inebriated individuals.. gals who prefer to hang out at dark.. become responsible for their acts and might provoke some individuals into primitive acts.. again not morally wrong.. but inappropriate.....

...and what about the guys "morality" here? why is it okay for him to force himself on a woman just because she was behaving "inappropriately"??? besides, most rapes occur w/o any provocation at all. all the children who get raped/molested r not behaving 'inappropriately"...are they? and again..."inappropriate" is also subjective. point is there r no absolutes when it comes to how pwople should behave/act.

Only todays junta engages in this kind of grey areas.. if people stick to rules firmly.. just like they stick to the "law" that would make the society much better place....😊

😆 only today's junta??? need a recap in history buddy😉 what moghals did when they entered india or what brits did may be moral for them based on their goals but it was not moral to the indians. there is no such thing as universal morality.

Some are deduced.. some are premises.. you need to pick the right one at the right time....

so, u r agreeing that there's no one right that fits all situations😉

Hinduism and islam have classic interpretations of morality... but again just cos some people misinterpret them doesnt make it invalid or excessive... again I dont wanna get religion here since religion propagate the implication of moral principles.. Surprising isnt it though the religions differ, the demography differs.. there are somethings common to everybody in the world...what mechanism they use to impose them is seldom relevant...

qwertoo, u r contradicting your earlier statements a lot now. i will appreciate it if u can make a post where u recap all that u r saying here so that we get to know ur what exactly ur stand is😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

not ocassionally, seldom B or C... See if the morality changed every instant and with every circumstance.. it would be undefined today after so many years.. and people wouldnt be behave similar..

but aside from a very few commandments, morality is largely undefined. we dont go around consciously thinking about our morality and acting on that basis. it's mostly an instinctive thing, and what seems vaguely right for one person is wrong by another. hazy as one's understanding is, the vagueness also changes over time.

as for behaving "similar", of course. i mean what are the choices? do the action, dont do, dont care. 😆we should then of course find a lot of people pursuing each of these three courses of action- whether it's on questions of religion, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, widows remarrying, death penalty etc.. People fall into different camps, each violently opposed to the other. Within a camp, the behavior might be similar on that one issue, but inter-camp, they are markedly dissimilar. one just have to think about real-world choices and not your milk versus rum choice to see that. 😉

so the similarity is deceptive and is really brought about because the choices are limited in any specific situation. but the fact that they can fall into sharply different camps shows how dissimilar global behavior is, as opposed to localized ones. also, when it comes to more issues than one, we start to see individuals diverging even more sharply. they may agree on homsexuality, but disagree on something else. all of which should not be too surprising- if people actually behaved the same, they'd all be behavioral clones of each other which they are not. 😉

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Should the poor choices of some people infringe on the right to freedom and choice of most people.

Sure anyone can make poor choices BLP made and end up in rehab or jail , but most ppl won't thanks to their sense of right and wrong.😃 The notion that everyone should be able to do whatever they want (outside of freedom we already have here in the US) is of course emotionally satisfying untill it lands them in trouble or messed up. Freedom comes with the responsiblity of knowing that it is not going to hurt oneself or neighbor and the action will not turn out to make one regretful.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

see, there r no absolute rights or wrongs. there can't be any absolute rights or wrongs.

Are you absolutely sure of that? Is that a right or wrong statement? Your statement is an absolute statement and in itself denies absolutes. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute that there are absolutely no absolutes. 😕

Not taking it out of context of your post G but I found the statement contradictory in itself. 😛

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Are you absolutely sure of that? Is that a right or wrong statement? Your statement is an absolute statement and in itself denies absolutes. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute that there are absolutely no absolutes. 😕

Not taking it out of context of your post G but I found the statement contradictory in itself. 😛

😆😆 i thought there was a huge difference between true/false and right/wrong!!! ab naheen hai toh batao😆

sorry lighty, fancy dancy play of words above but it is cracking me up🤣 saari ramayan khatm hone key baad bhi tum poochh rahee ho how i'm aboslutely sure that there r no absolute rights or wrongs when it comes to human actions😆 may be u need to revisit all the posts here😆