Right or Wrong - who determines that? - Page 14

Originally posted by: chatbuster

simple question for you- will people faced with different real-world situations reach the same conclusions on what's right or wrong? can they? let's even assume they are not trying to harm themselves or anyone, the benchmarks you seem to have attached to moral decision-making.

Your question is confusing in that it implies different scenarios to have reached same R/W conclusion.. But yes , almost every situation has a right and wrong answer but it becomes subjective to individual when ego, fear, greed, moral probity , risk tolerance are added into decision making process. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right is what we have heard many times before and it holds some truth to it.

Human beings are fallible which means that what we think is right for us may not be right after all. hence in hind sight we see where we screwed up. Moral judgement is important after all to put us back on track otherwise everyone would be enagaged in fancifull whimsical stuff. In trickiest of situations (and I don't know what they are to you since you haven't mentioned a particular scene) , we usually seem to be in moral quandry not necessarily in a R vs W bind. It helps to assume a stoic state to recognize R/W.

I don't agree that we should be non judgemental about everything.. while it gives us licence to not be judged ourselves, we are losing out on fine tuning our moral bearings which help us in making decision in problematic situations. Moral judgement without compassion is wrong in most cases.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The Japanese believe in a saving face culture. It would be wrong to criticize your Japanese co-worker. At the same time Americans consider it wrong to let mistakes go unnoticed. Russians also have a saving face culture. People tell white lies called 'vranyo' to deny errors. Russians find it wrong when people do not utilize vranyo to save face. Other cultures find it wrong that such lying is acceptable. In Latin America a premium called 'la mordida' is expected to be paid to have a government contract passed. The government official is considered 'right' in demanding the premium for their service. In other parts of the world we consider this as a 'bribe' and 'wrong'.

I think you are talking about social conventions not morals. Everyone knows it is wrong to steal but if it is allowed in a certain community , it becomes social convention. 😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

you are the one arguing for rules, not us.😉 it's all black or white according to you.

Right, in which case you dont need rules.. its either this or that... I believe rule based systems.. miss the point of morality totally...

Originally posted by: lighthouse

I think you are talking about social conventions not morals. Everyone knows it is wrong to steal but if it is allowed in a certain community , it becomes social convention. 😊

would it still be wrong if a 7yr old starving orphan takes a bread loaf out of a bakery shelf as a last resort......as no one else is helping him out when he asked?

see, our point is that right and wrong is not black and white. stealing is wrong but unders certain situations, it is not...same as ur killing example.

as far as morals, social conventions do dictate morality and they do define morality within their domain. what's moral for one society may be immoral for another as noted before numerous times. can't be black and white on morals either. pre-marital sex is immoral in india but not so in america. just because it is disallowed and disapproved in certain socities doesn't make it immoral.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

would it still be wrong if a 7yr old starving orphan takes a bread loaf out of a bakery shelf as a last resort......as no one else is helping him out when he asked? Although systems think he can steal.. he still will be punished.. it doesnt become a privilege.. of any kind.. but like LH mentioned.. in extreme situation.. remember not all 7 yr old starving kids would steal.. which does make it an exception of 0.1% kind

see, our point is that right and wrong is not black and white. stealing is wrong but unders certain situations, it is not...same as ur killing example. above should answer this and there is only black or white.. 😊

as far as morals, social conventions do dictate morality and they do define morality within their domain. what's moral for one society may be immoral for another as noted before numerous times. can't be black and white on morals either. pre-marital sex is immoral in india but not so in america. just because it is disallowed and disapproved in certain socities doesn't make it immoral. tweaking morality is not matter of convenience.. like justifying homosexuality or live-in marriages.. it loses meaning when people strive to justify exceptions by purposely treading in wrong areas and define morality of convenience...😉 Killing is wrong.. morality still allows killing in war.. but still we call killing by a criminal wrong..even if teh criminal can make up a sob story, which says a lot about things being only black and white... 😊

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Your question is confusing in that it implies different scenarios to have reached same R/W conclusion.. But yes , almost every situation has a right and wrong answer but it becomes subjective to individual when ego, fear, greed, moral probity , risk tolerance are added into decision making process.

it becomes subjective due to other numerous factors also. for example situation, goals a person has for themselves etc. every situation has numerous permutations and combinations of right or wrong. no one situation has just one right or wrong.

Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right is what we have heard many times before and it holds some truth to it.

and just because some may not do it does not make it a wrong either....like the fetus abortion example we discussed before.

Human beings are fallible which means that what we think is right for us may not be right after all. hence in hind sight we see where we screwed up.

....and most take lessons from those screw-ups to ensure they make the right choice next time....now, that right choice may end up being a wrong per sey but it may be right for them. for example, their screw up might be that they did not offer bribe in a country where it's an accepted norm because they thought it was wrong. so they missed out on a lucrative business deal. next time, they'll know better😉

jokes apart, there r ups and downs in everyone's life. what's right for them today may not be right for them tw. an uncommitted bachelor may go around picking up partners here and there and it's right for him. but it won't be right for the same bachelor once he's committed in a relationship or gets married.

so, whether it was not right afterall in hindsite or whenther it was right at one point in time but not in some other is irrelevant. main point is right/wrong/morality is not about "one size fits all". it's more about customization based on factors we put on board.

Moral judgement is important after all to put us back on track otherwise everyone would be enagaged in fancifull whimsical stuff. In trickiest of situations (and I don't know what they are to you since you haven't mentioned a particular scene) , we usually seem to be in moral quandry not necessarily in a R vs W bind. It helps to assume a stoic state to recognize R/W.

don't know what u r saying here!!! isn't morality also about choosing the right over wrong? in indian scenario, it's not right to indulge in pre-marital sex because it is considered immoral....see the connection there!!!

I don't agree that we should be non judgemental about everything.. while it gives us licence to not be judged ourselves, we are losing out on fine tuning our moral bearings which help us in making decision in problematic situations. Moral judgement without compassion is wrong in most cases.

i think u guys r agreeing with us more and more...just not realizing it or unwilling to admit it. if morality/right/wrong were black and white, u wouldn't have variables in those equations then...like compassion u mentioned above😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Your question is confusing in that it implies different scenarios to have reached same R/W conclusion.. But yes , almost every situation has a right and wrong answer but it becomes subjective to individual when ego, fear, greed, moral probity , risk tolerance are added into decision making process. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right is what we have heard many times before and it holds some truth to it.

Human beings are fallible which means that what we think is right for us may not be right after all. hence in hind sight we see where we screwed up. Moral judgement is important after all to put us back on track otherwise everyone would be enagaged in fancifull whimsical stuff. In trickiest of situations (and I don't know what they are to you since you haven't mentioned a particular scene) , we usually seem to be in moral quandry not necessarily in a R vs W bind. It helps to assume a stoic state to recognize R/W.

I don't agree that we should be non judgemental about everything.. while it gives us licence to not be judged ourselves, we are losing out on fine tuning our moral bearings which help us in making decision in problematic situations. Moral judgement without compassion is wrong in most cases.

yes, our moral judgments do enter into the equation- but it's our morals, not someone else's! 😉we have to hold true to ourselves, not necessarily to something external. i dont see that as being non-judgmental as you are suggesting- nowhere do i suggest that it's acceptable to break the moral contract we have with ourselves.😕

meanwhile, i think to argue that we should all have the same sense of right and wrong is ignoring obvious differences in circumstances, perception, natural ability etc. It also ignores mankind's history of evolving towards different sense of right from wrong, of our differences from even our ancestors, let alone our contemporaries. Now how qwerty and you get to that is something you guys should lay out. Would be better imo than finding exceptions we can debate about endlessly.😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

yes, our moral judgments do enter into the equation- but it's our morals, not someone else's! 😉we have to hold true to ourselves, not necessarily to something external. i dont see that as being non-judgmental as you are suggesting- nowhere do i suggest that it's acceptable to break the moral contract we have with ourselves.😕

meanwhile, i think to argue that we should all have the same sense of right and wrong is ignoring obvious differences in circumstances, perception, natural ability etc. It also ignores mankind's history of evolving towards different sense of right from wrong, of our differences from even our ancestors, let alone our contemporaries. Now how qwerty and you get to that is something you guys should lay out. Would be better imo than finding exceptions we can debate about endlessly.😊

I think what we are saying is that our morals are mostly similar as the 10 commandments hasn't changed since our ancestors time and our moral judgement is consistent within our domain hence ppl engage in lying about affairs, cover ups and using modern era freedom to justify anything and everything. All of us still get hurt the same and feel the same pain when we are victims . hence don't do what you don't want to be done unto you is still a favorite quote.