Definition of Right/Wrong

[piap]

Hello all.
My first post...

How do you define a 'good' action?
How do you define an 'evil' action?
How do you define the word 'ought'?

I am interested in seeing answers from all, atheists and theists alike.

thank you

[olavisjo]

No, being normative would to be to endorse the view that's correct, not an arbitrary one.

How do you determine what is correct?
Can you prove mathematically that parking my car at an expired meter is wrong, I had an important meeting that I needed to be on time for, and I did not have any coins and there was no place in sight where I could get any, so I said fine I will pay the ticket. I violated the parking law, did I do anything wrong? In my opinion I did nothing wrong as I was aware of the consequences of my actions and I was willing to abide by them.
The fortunate thing for me is that when I got back to my car there was no ticket on it, so now in order to be ethical 'ought' I still send the fine for illegal parking to the city treasury? I don't think that anyone would.
No harm, no foul.
Would you say this is correct?

[Thought Criminal]

No, being normative would to be to endorse the view that's correct, not an arbitrary one.

How do you determine what is correct?
Can you prove mathematically that parking my car at an expired meter is wrong, I had an important meeting that I needed to be on time for, and I did not have any coins and there was no place in sight where I could get any, so I said fine I will pay the ticket. I violated the parking law, did I do anything wrong? In my opinion I did nothing wrong as I was aware of the consequences of my actions and I was willing to abide by them.
The fortunate thing for me is that when I got back to my car there was no ticket on it, so now in order to be ethical 'ought' I still send the fine for illegal parking to the city treasury? I don't think that anyone would.
No harm, no foul.
Would you say this is correct?

Determining what is correct is within the field of ethics, not math. Math can, of course, inform ethical reasoning, and some forms of applied math, such as game theory, are particularly relevant. Still, asking for mathematical proof shows you don't understand what ethics is, or you're pretending not to.

I have absolutely no interest in discussing your parking violations, as they have no impact on the basics of ethics. Instead, I would suggest that you consider the Eurythro dilemma.

TC

[olavisjo]

...shows you don't understand what ethics is, or you're pretending not to.

I am not pretending this time, I don't understand what ethics is.
If you would give me a brief explanation I would be most beholden.

[Thought Criminal]

...shows you don't understand what ethics is, or you're pretending not to.

I am not pretending this time, I don't understand what ethics is.
If you would give me a brief explanation I would be most beholden.

By the very nature of the Internet, if you can read this post, you have access to a dictionary. Mine defines ethics as "that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions".

TC

[olavisjo]

By the very nature of the Internet, if you can read this post, you have access to a dictionary. Mine defines ethics as "that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions".

A definition is nice, but how does this definition imply, your assertion, that a mathematical proof for rightness and wrongness of certain actions is not possible?

[Thought Criminal]

By the very nature of the Internet, if you can read this post, you have access to a dictionary. Mine defines ethics as "that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions".

A definition is nice, but how does this definition imply, your assertion, that a mathematical proof for rightness and wrongness of certain actions is not possible?

Determining what is correct is within the field of ethics, not math. Math can, of course, inform ethical reasoning, and some forms of applied math, such as game theory, are particularly relevant. Still, asking for mathematical proof shows you don't understand what ethics is, or you're pretending not to.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

By the very nature of the Internet, if you can read this post, you have access to a dictionary. Mine defines ethics as "that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions".

A definition is nice, but how does this definition imply, your assertion, that a mathematical proof for rightness and wrongness of certain actions is not possible?

Determining what is correct is within the field of ethics, not math. Math can, of course, inform ethical reasoning, and some forms of applied math, such as game theory, are particularly relevant. Still, asking for mathematical proof shows you don't understand what ethics is, or you're pretending not to.

TC

Fine then, replace the word "mathematically" with "logically". Can you logically say that one person's view of morality is superior to another person's?

[Thought Criminal]

Fine then, replace the word "mathematically" with "logically". Can you logically say that one person's view of morality is superior to another person's?

Some beliefs about morality are clearly false, so sure.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Fine then, replace the word "mathematically" with "logically". Can you logically say that one person's view of morality is superior to another person's?

Some beliefs about morality are clearly false, so sure.

TC

Then logically show that something is unequivocally good or evil.

[Thought Criminal]

Fine then, replace the word "mathematically" with "logically". Can you logically say that one person's view of morality is superior to another person's?

Some beliefs about morality are clearly false, so sure.

Then logically show that something is unequivocally good or evil.

To remind you, I'm talking about morality and immorality, which are entirely secular topics. Good and evil is either a misleading, poetic way to refer to the same thing or, more likely, a reference to religious notions that have no rational basis.

Also, I said that some beliefs about morality are false, while you want something that's unequivocally evil. I don't know if we're even talking about the same thing.

Having made these clarifications, I will at least to try to answer what I think your question is.

Morality is defined in terms of what benefits or harms us. Therefore, an action that causes considerably more harm than benefit is clearly immoral. A generic example might be acting on the decision to murder everyone I see. Someone could argue that this isn't unequivocally immoral because I might at least get some fun out of mass murder, but this is not a particularly persuasive argument because it fails to compare this against the harm to the people being killed.

I don't think this is particularly controversial, so nobody here is likely to endorse arbitrary mass murder. However, some will pretend that this is no better or worse, morally, than scratching my nose. I say "pretend" because I doubt they really believe it. They're just arguing against secular ethics to generate the illusion that we need religion.

So, in conclusion, an example of a belief about morality being false is that I ought to murder everyone I see.

TC