BS: The difference between right and wrong..

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: kendall
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:36 PM

Joe, I see your point. I was quoting the Bard because to me it said get in touch with your better nature. Of course, there are people who have no better nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:39 PM

If you read Kant thoroughly, and agree with his starting points, he explains that 'necessary' becomes logically obvious.

We humans are cursed/blessed (depending on your attitude) with the *ahem* ability to ignore logic and do as we see our own advantage.

This is SUCH a hard point to make to those whose own argument forms are already outside of logical forms. They write their own rule book, then follow it....ummmm....religiously.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:37 PM

In the right measure.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:28 PM

"He (Kant) defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary."

Ah, but who gets to decide whether any action or inaction is necessary? :)

Kind of like the concept of 'tough love', the idea being that one must sometimes be cruel in order to be kind.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

It really IS all there in that Kant thing...

but if that's too much for you, here's a synopsis of the basic principle, which has a certain resemblance to The Golden Rule.

the Categorical Imperative

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM

Inconvenience to themselves, absolutely! Hence convenience stores, convenience foods, convenience this, convenience that. The "me" society, to be sure.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:34 PM

Yes, the main thing people try to avoid in this society is inconvenience... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM

The problem, olddude, is that it's not enough of a rule. Very seldom are we called to die for our friends. More often we have to put ourselves at an inconvenience, and not just for our friends but for our enemies and for total strangers.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:57 AM

Don
in my faith is a statement
"no great love can one man have, then to lay down his life for his friend"

Complete and total selflessness ...pretty high goal to achieve indeed but a great rule none the less.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 06:44 AM

""If I let a person next to me starve to death by not interacting with him at all, I haven't actively harmed him. But that's not enough.""

No No!

That would be entirely inconsistent with my statement. It is implicit in placing the wellfare of others above your personal desires, that you could not stand idly by, and watch harm come to them by any means.

We are talking absolutes here, and my definition is an aspirational one. It cannot ever translate into reality, because we are not dealing in infinitely good human beings.

However, it is a level to which we could, if we so choose, all aspire, and those of us who come closest to success, would be incapable, in practical terms,of doing wrong, or standing by, inactive, when wrong is being done.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:38 AM

Is it enough to just not do harm? We should also do good. If I let a person next to me starve to death by not interacting with him at all, I haven't actively harmed him. But that's not enough. We have to not just not harm, but also do good. "Sins of omission" they used to call them, back when people still believed in "sin".

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:08 AM

How much does one genuinely have concern for others, that's the question. It is the truest measure of character. It's a much truer measure of character than mere courage, tenacity or grit....though all those are very worthy qualities in their own right. But there are some very courageous and tough people in this world who really don't give a damn about anyone but themselves...and they aren't much use to the rest of the community, are they? (Babyface Nelson would be an interesting example of that. He had tons of physical courage, acquired in a very tough growing up experience, but he was a curse on his community, because he was simply out for himself. Another good example: Blackbeard the Pirate. No lack of courage and grit there, but he was a curse on the society of his time.)

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 12:02 AM

well said Don , very well said. i like that

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:29 PM

Ultimately, I would tend to agree with you on that, Don. The most highly developed people in either a spiritual or a moral sense do just as you say: they make concern for others paramount. It is their selfless service to others that sets them aside as absolutely remarkable beings in a world that is commonly ruled by self-interest.

If you read Mark Twain's superb biography of Joan of Arc, for instance, that is precisely the point that Twain is making about her life, and it's why he bothered to write the book in the first place. He was mightily impressed with her character. (He spent a decade researching her life before writing the book, and he read all the transcripts from her trials and other records from that time period which were still being kept in the National Archives in France.)

It's also what distinguished Jesus...if we can go by what's in the New Testament. He made concern for others paramount.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:16 PM

""I don't agree, Kendall - there has to be an element of concern for your fellow man/woman...""

IMHO that doesn't go far enough Joe.

It has to be more than an element. Concern for one's fellows must be paramount.

That in itself removes the question of crime from the equation.

If your concern for your fellows overrides your personal desires, then murder, rape, theft, and all other crimes become impossible for you.

That is why I equated right with the concept of self limitation to avoid harm (physical, material, and psychological).

If one follows that precept, it becomes impossible to do wrong.

I ask this in a spirit of simple genuine enquiry. Can anybody show me anything fallacious in my analysis?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:02 PM

Well put, Amos. It all depends on how deeply the concept of "self" goes. The superficial self (the personality) may do all kinds of immoral and destructive things, but is the superficial self the real self? Or is it a mere temporary overlay, like a coat of paint on a marble statue?

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM

To thine own self be true is deeper than it seems, Joe. One who IS true to his own self, by nature, will be deep in compassion and insight. The madness of greed and crime are born from fear and being cut off from one's own nature by force, essentially, domination, invalidation, and various kinds of suppression.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 08:08 PM

I don't agree, Kendall - there has to be an element of concern for your fellow man/woman...

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: kendall
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 08:03 PM

To thine own self be true.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 08:02 PM

Hi, olddude -
I think that the real right and wrong is beyond law. Law can sometimes be an accurate description of what's right, but that depends on whether the lawgiver has a correct sense of right and wrong. Too often, our lawgivers are interested in their own benefit, not in the common good.
It's not what we're taught, either. You've Got To Be Carefully Taught is one of the least-known songs from the musical South Pacific, but Oscar Hammerstein II did a wonderful job of crafting the lyrics - telling how children have to be taught to be bigoted.
But I think we all have an innate sense of what's right or wrong. Some call it conscience, but I think it's mostly common sense. If your vision is broad enough, you can see that what's right is what's best for everyone, not just for yourself.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:56 PM

Among the Plains Indians of the American West it was considered totally wrong to steal from another member of one's own tribe....but exemplary behaviour to steal from various other tribes, particularly when you stole their horses. ;-) People have a way of rationalizing these things.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:12 PM

Joe
   very true, but where does the ethics come from? What if they passed a law that said it is ok to steal on Tuesday .. Why would no one here do that. It usually goes like this

Because it is against my nature to do such things
ok, why, the law just said it is ok

Because it is not right ... why ..

and the final thing is ... "Because my parents taught me right from wrong"   That is were the Golden rule comes from ... and we don't do that much anymore sadly

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 04:46 PM

I think there's more to ethics than simply "do no harm." I think we have an obligation to make things better, and to alleviate suffering - and obligation for social justice covers it pretty well, although Glenn Beck might disagree. Yeah, I think I'd agree with Kendall that the Golden Rule covers it.
Most religions seem to have been founded on the Golden Rule, and often they spend most of their energy finding ways to prove that the Golden Rule doesn't apply to them....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 04:40 PM

Well here is my thought process since the thread was about right or wrong. Man is a social being, I suspect we are born with some sense or learn really quickly how to get along and what to do around others. I believe the moral guidelines are supported throughout our life by either our religious beliefs , or in the case of no belief's by our humanity. I don't believe it is an accident that the many good friends I have here on mudcat hail from all systems to no system of belief, and pretty much to a person are good loving and caring people. That the standard of morals for a successful human being in society is pretty much the same if the society they live in is a successful society and lasts.

I believe that if our society , would get back to a general guide line of moral conduct, be it supported by our faith or simply our humanity, we would have much less of the crime, drugs and other issues. Hence we would see less laws to fill in the hole, and for me, each law that is passed erodes individual freedoms, eroding the Constitution ...

anyway that is my take on right or wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 04:00 PM

I don't know. There are historic/social codes which objectively seem to make no sense bar the mindless adherence to rule, and there are ethical or humanitarian ones based on the principle of minimisation of suffering for others (such as Buddha and Jesus advocated).

It bothers me how many religions appear to place the former over the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM

Ahhh now I see , and if someone breaks the moral code ... regardless   we throw it out as defective ... interesting ...

Kinda like the written law, if some one steals we remove the law preventing stealing because it must be defective ... got it .. clear as a bell to me

So Capts golden rule doesn't apply because one person broke it .. so we shoot em ..

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:39 PM

Then right and wrong is an individual decision? In which case it explains how people can murder without conscience? Seems to me it is a function of basic humanity, be it conscience, religious beliefs or just DNA ... a code of morality exists in everyone .. when it doesn't you have the greed, the murder ... and hence more laws to fill the hole that was left by the lack thereof

So abandon anything that expresses any morality?   seems to me that is a mistake also ... but that is just my opinion

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM

Human empathy is one reason, Doc. Them as has it are more likely to seek optimum solutions across a wider spectrum instead of the "what's good for me" blinders common in some circles.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:29 PM

De Sade wrote something like 'what is right for me may very well be wrong for you'. As the slave owner might say to the slave. But why do we think slavery is wrong? Did someone tell us? It's certainly not the Bible: Jesus doesn't mention it and St Paul actually condones it. Perhaps that's how the owners and traders could happily go to church each Sunday. What do other holy book say? Perhaps we just followed Mrs Do-As-You-Would-Be-Done-By.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 02:58 PM

Rose tinted glasses, the pervading sin of the religious.

Amish child abuse.

I'd like to bet that nobody can come up with a crime that is always wrong,or a virtue that is always good.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

A student of Rabbi Hellil asked him to explain the Tora and the Rabbi said, "That which you would not have others do to you, do not do to them.All the rest is commentary" The Rabbi lived from 70 BC to 7 AD.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 12:27 PM

The Amish attitude toward the punishment of transgressors reminds me of the actions taken by Alaska Native elders particularly in isolated communities. Even in modern times the Native community believes that the crime or misdemeanor should be kept within the community to be addressed there. They often resent and fear the intrusion of mainstream law into their traditional methods.

Rap, I very much doubt that "crime among the Amish is just a prevalent as among the rest of us". Among the Amish, doors are locked against "English" intruders, not against their own kind. The 'bad apple' is still not a common thing. I personally have never known an Amish thief. Sexual predation, yes. Again, that is quite similar to what can be found in some Alaska Native communities. Isolation and ignorance are major factors. Ignorance, above all.

Incidentally, I have never heard the Amish refer to "Yankee". I don't doubt that it is used regionally; however, the one I'm familiar with is "English", because of the language spoken by the hoche.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 12:16 PM

Amos
you are in line with many of the great philosophers ... what is the Latin term Concenus Gencium (sp) or something like that ... a code of the individual that leads to a successful or unsuccessful society.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 12:04 PM

With all due respect, there is no single code or single definition available. Generally, right actions are those acts or omissions which enhance broad survival of self and others, their symbiotes, etc. but that's an awfully broad guideline.

Every act (committed or omitted) has a consequence and a context. The context is essential to any evaluation of the act. Even the Golden Rule can fall short in situations where it is not reciprocal such as defending oneself against a rapist, for example.

All that said, there seems to be an instinct toward optimal rightness inherent in the human mind or spirit, but it is very easily pushed down out of sight when individual greed or neurosis comes forward.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 12:02 PM

It's a bit complex, but you might get some idea from the per capita murders statistics here.

The USA is around average at 24th, with Colombia being top (drug gangs and weak government), South Africa 2nd (still integrating after decades if a repressive minority regime) but Jamaica is 3rd. The UK is 46th with about 30% of the murders per capita of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

Ok ok, here is the point that I ponder often ... and you folks can help me ... If a group of people, are raised by personal faiths (no specific faith or even no faith) but raised with the concept ..
"Thy shalt not steal", "Thy shalt not kill"

is that group, more or less likely to do such acts ...? I pose it as a question. It is a good question because if the answer is yes than any general belief in a non law based morality is good for any nation. If the answer is no , then no framework whatever will lessen the number of laws or crimes against others in the society.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:45 AM

By the way, I am in no way affirming that their way of life is good, better or best ... Just saying the follow a moral code of behavior. But their society is also complex and somewhat corrupted by the leaders of their faith ... From some of the Amish I know, I really do not like even a little bit how women are treated ... Frankly they are worked to death in that culture ... but it is not their code of the 10 commandments that tells them it is ok ... it is the dynamic of their culture that does that.   Morality as written by their doctrine of faith would say it is wrong to do that ..

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:35 AM

Sins, reading those articles it looks like with everything else in life there is exceptions to any rule ..Boy there will be bad people in all walks of life regardless of the moral code they are suppose to follow. I would love to see the statics overall and how as a group they stack up to the US society as a whole ... that would be cool

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM

my friends, I learn something everyday ... I probably should qualify my statements as to my location. But as Rap just said they don't report it ... excellent points, I stand corrected

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:07 AM

I was gonna say....

Having spent 28 years working in Amish areas and counting some of the Amish among my good friends at the time I can assure you that crime among the Amish is just a prevalent as among the rest of us.

What truly distresses me are the "Yankees" who prey upon the Amish, as the Amish will only rarely report a crime. I know of three "Yankees" who grabbed a slightly mentally challenged Amish girl while she was walking to her home, raped her repeatedly, infected her, impregnated her, and threw her from their van at 30 mph. She lived, and in this case the Amish community called in the sheriff, who had the three in jail in short order. The Amish forgave; the Yankee community was ready for a lynch party, but the three ended up with "life without parole."

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 10:54 AM

Dan - I love a challenge.
Amish Crime:
http://www.google.com/search?q=amish+crime&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:38 AM

"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality." --Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, 1809. ME 12:315

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:17 AM

And when is the last time any one of us heard of an Amish guy being arrested for stealing, or murder ..? It doesn't happen because their code of moral conduct is based on the teachings of Christ .. it is good for religion and good for the nation .. not a bunch of new prisons being built to hold those drug dealing Amish LOL

The "religious right" we see in America today, they have no clue about their own faith and or their government .. Religion is a personal matter, not to be used for politics, it is guaranteed corruption of faith to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:08 AM

Bill
it is just the opposite, a religion based on love , Compassion and tolerance. It is the corruption of men for power that distorts it and cause the problems in history. Even Jefferson, Franklin and the other founding fathers noted that. Their slamming of Christians was based on the corruption in the churchs. The teaching however was another story ..

About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:

    As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

He died just over a month later on April 17.


A person who believes truly in Christ, would not and cannot do what others who Claim to follow him did and still do. But I don't want to turn this into a religious thread. I will submit however, the code of morals that was followed though out the course of US history and based on the teaching of Christ lead to a whole lot less government. People back then were far less likely to do some of the things we see today. Which requires a new law every time to plug the morality hole that was lost .. We are a nation to worship or not worship as we see fit. The country was not founded on any religion but the moral code of conduct that most followed helped keep people from cooking up such ponzi schemes and other stuff we see today. So Religion can be a very positive force .. but never at a government level . It will always corrupt and become destructive. Why I hate preachers trying to meddle into politics. If they spent their time on faith issues and morality of their parishioners, everyone would be better off, including indirectly the country

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: MikeL2
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:50 AM

hi

Right is doing what my wife tells me !!!!

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM

If Immanuel Kant, Ghenis Khan. Anyway - I wouldn't believe a word of that text. Remember -

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 02:54 AM

There are three directions to choose: Right. Left. Wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 02:09 AM

How about - right is when everybody does whatever they want, but without:

Violence
Coercion
Deception


If someone peacefully and openly cultivates cannabis purely for his own use, there is no violence, deception or coercion involved but the law will say he is wrong,


DC

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 10:59 PM

(Besides, Bill -- I had to read that for my course in Ethics. That and a whole lot else.)

Subject: RE: BS: The difference between right and wrong..
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 10:59 PM

Immanuel had the answers, you betcha. He could answer the Big Questions. As they used to say, "If Kant can't, nobody can."