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

[Thought Criminal]

You have still yet to prove that. You have still yet to prove that dying young is universally bad.

I don't believe you, so I'm going to call your bluff. If it's not bad, prove it by personal demonstration. Refusal to do so immediately will be understood as a concession.

This post is basically saying that I'm wrong, for the same reason you stated about a page ago. The problem is, you still haven't proved an objectivity to dying young. "Bob needs air to live" points out a fact, and isn't subjective. "Air is good for Bob" is subjective because it presumes that Bob actually wants to keep living.

It is good for Bob, but this doesn't preclude cost/benefit analysis. It may well be that air is good for Bob, but a helium/oxygen mix is much better for him because it'll help him avoid the bends on his dive. Or it may be that Bob is in intolerable pain as part of a terminal condition and the best available option we have is to turn off the ventilator so he no longer has air. This doesn't make air bad; it just makes intolerable pain due to a terminal condition worse.

You're making the same mistake as the last person to respond: ignoring the ceteris paribus provision. You're looking so hard for the exceptions that you're ignoring the rule, and that's just intellectually dishonest.

There is no entirely universal aspect though. Not even something like the will to live, or reproduction is universal, which, as I said before, are the basics of human nature.

I can see that you're unfamiliar with Pinker.

http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/ma ... sion3.html

TC

[olavisjo]

Suggestion: look up "ceteris paribus".

Definition of Ceteris Paribus: Ceteris Paribus means "assuming all else is held constant". The author using ceteris paribus is attempting to distinguish an effect of one kind of change from any others.

That is fine, you have established that smoking has adverse health effects, I do not deny that. I am saying that just because it is bad in some ways does not make it wrong for all people to do. In fact almost one in five adults feel that the benefits, pleasure, need etc of smoking outweighs the health risk. Can we tell them that they are wrong because 4 out of 5 people don't agree with them?

Ceteris Paribus driving is dangerous, therefore we should all walk.

I don't believe you, so I'm going to call your bluff. If it's not bad, prove it by personal demonstration. Refusal to do so immediately will be understood as a concession.

You should use one of the emoticons when you kid around like that.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

You have still yet to prove that. You have still yet to prove that dying young is universally bad.

I don't believe you, so I'm going to call your bluff. If it's not bad, prove it by personal demonstration. Refusal to do so immediately will be understood as a concession.
TC

lol, So, you're essentially saying that if I don't view dying young as good and show it by killing myself, I'm wrong? Well, honestly, I'm flattered that you think that my view of the world applies to everyone else, but it actually doesn't.

The fact that I actually want to live doesn't mean everyone else in the world does, nor are my beliefs inherently superior to those who don't want to live. Honestly, my entire stance here is that "benefits" and "harms" (as well as morality as a whole) are subjective terms, so you attempt to disprove that by showing that I too have a subjective opinion of what is beneficial and what is harmful?

You're making the same mistake as the last person to respond: ignoring the ceteris paribus provision. You're looking so hard for the exceptions that you're ignoring the rule, and that's just intellectually dishonest.

Well, I'd say that is somewhat contradictory because I pointed out that the majority of all humans do want to live and reproduce, and this constitutes basic human nature. I then went on to point out that there are many exceptions to that rule. If I stated the "rule" itself (not a rule, in the sense that it must be followed, but a rule in the sense that it applies to most humans, by nature), how exactly am I ignoring it? You're not only fishing here, but starting to focus on the person instead of the debate itself.

I can see that you're unfamiliar with Pinker.

http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/ma ... sion3.html

TC

He seemed to focus a lot more on nurture vs. nature than a basic human nature. He pointed out that genetics affect us greatly, but never came close to creating a unified human nature that isn't without common exceptions. The majority of his lecture was focused on genetic engineering, with just a few paragraphs in the beginning that focus on human nature.

[Thought Criminal]

Ceteris Paribus driving is dangerous, therefore we should all walk.

This is as irrelevant as it is false. A proper use of ceteris paribus is to acknowledge the possibility of an exception without pretending that it is anything but an exception.

For example, having your limbs amputated is, ceteris paribus, a bad thing. When isn't it a bad thing? When all things aren't equal, when circumstances are so different from the norm that the cost/benefit ratio is upset. If the limb is dead and gangrenous, amputation is still harmful, but less harmful than the alternative.

You should use one of the emoticons when you kid around like that.

Do I look like I'm kidding?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

lol, So, you're essentially saying that if I don't view dying young as good and show it by killing myself, I'm wrong? Well, honestly, I'm flattered that you think that my view of the world applies to everyone else, but it actually doesn't.

I'm saying tht you're bluffing. All things being equal, it is better to live longer. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be here right now, arguing. You'd be dead. By living, you have conceded the point, and I graciously accept your concession.

The fact that I actually want to live doesn't mean everyone else in the world does, nor are my beliefs inherently superior to those who don't want to live. Honestly, my entire stance here is that "benefits" and "harms" (as well as morality as a whole) are subjective terms, so you attempt to disprove that by showing that I too have a subjective opinion of what is beneficial and what is harmful?

You've said nothing about the truth of my generalization, which demonstrates that benefit and harm are not merely subjective.

Well, I'd say that is somewhat contradictory because I pointed out that the majority of all humans do want to live and reproduce, and this constitutes basic human nature. I then went on to point out that there are many exceptions to that rule.

You've yet to point out a single actual exception.

If I stated the "rule" itself (not a rule, in the sense that it must be followed, but a rule in the sense that it applies to most humans, by nature), how exactly am I ignoring it? You're not only fishing here, but starting to focus on the person instead of the debate itself.

There is a reason why it's true for almost all people, and in the few cases where it is false, there is a reason why it's false. It's not arbitrary.

He seemed to focus a lot more on nurture vs. nature than a basic human nature. He pointed out that genetics affect us greatly, but never came close to creating a unified human nature that isn't without common exceptions. The majority of his lecture was focused on genetic engineering, with just a few paragraphs in the beginning that focus on human nature.

I can't post his books online, just refer you to little interviews and such. In The Blank Slate, for example, he filled paragraphs with human universals, found in all cultures at all times. After reading that, I find it difficult to keep my face straight when you deny the existence of human nature.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I'm saying tht you're bluffing. All things being equal, I think it is better for me to live longer. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be here right now, arguing. You'd be dead. By living, you have conceded the point, and I graciously accept your concession.

Fixed. That is what I believe, and that is the only thing I concede by being alive.

Honestly, this debate is going nowhere. It's been going in circles for a page now, and I grow tired of arguing semantics. I have seen no logical proof that morality is anything but subjective, nor will I in this thread, it seems.

[Thought Criminal]

I'm saying tht you're bluffing. All things being equal, I think it is better for me to live longer. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be here right now, arguing. You'd be dead. By living, you have conceded the point, and I graciously accept your concession.

Fixed. That is what I believe, and that is the only thing I concede by being alive.

Honestly, this debate is going nowhere. It's been going in circles for a page now, and I grow tired of arguing semantics. I have seen no logical proof that morality is anything but subjective, nor will I in this thread, it seems.

I agree completely. Morality is purely subjective, so you have no basis upon which to complain when I assassinate you on Tuesday.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I'm saying tht you're bluffing. All things being equal, I think it is better for me to live longer. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be here right now, arguing. You'd be dead. By living, you have conceded the point, and I graciously accept your concession.

Fixed. That is what I believe, and that is the only thing I concede by being alive.

Honestly, this debate is going nowhere. It's been going in circles for a page now, and I grow tired of arguing semantics. I have seen no logical proof that morality is anything but subjective, nor will I in this thread, it seems.

I agree completely. Morality is purely subjective, so you have no basis upon which to complain when I assassinate you on Tuesday.

TC

Exactly.