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]

I believe good and evil to be in the eye of the beholder. There is no true good, or true evil, only personal perceptions of what is good and what is evil. There is also no action that we "'ought" to do. It is up to the person, and I won't be passing judgment and telling them they should do something differently.

So if I decide to torture you to death, you have no basis upon which to object, eh? I like it already!

TC

[justifyothers]

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

It seems to me that there is no black and white. It is ALL grey. An act that seems good, may not really be and one that appears bad, may have positive outcome after all. I think any perspectives you can realize will help in each situation.

[Thought Criminal]

It seems to me that there is no black and white. It is ALL grey. An act that seems good, may not really be and one that appears bad, may have positive outcome after all. I think any perspectives you can realize will help in each situation.

If I see a child crossing the street against the light and call out a warning about the approaching car, thus saving their life, was that a good act?

I suppose if I had a crystal ball, I might find out that this child will wind up nuking NYC in the year 2030, killing millions, so I should have just let them die. But I don't have any such device, and neither does anyone else, so the best we can do is base on actions on what is foreseeable. All things being equal, I would suggest that saving the child was the right thing to do.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I believe good and evil to be in the eye of the beholder. There is no true good, or true evil, only personal perceptions of what is good and what is evil. There is also no action that we "'ought" to do. It is up to the person, and I won't be passing judgment and telling them they should do something differently.

So if I decide to torture you to death, you have no basis upon which to object, eh? I like it already!

TC

I can try to escape, sure, as being tortured to death isn't exactly what I had planned for my life, but I wouldn't consider them evil because what I view as good and evil only applies to me. I can imagine though, that screaming "You guys are evil", while they're shoving bamboo shoots under my fingernails wouldn't suddenly persuade them to let me go.

[Thought Criminal]

I can try to escape, sure, as being tortured to death isn't exactly what I had planned for my life, but I wouldn't consider them evil because what I view as good and evil only applies to me. I can imagine though, that screaming "You guys are evil", while they're shoving bamboo shoots under my fingernails wouldn't suddenly persuade them to let me go.

The problem here isn't convincing them, it's making any claim at all that they're doing something wrong. If you can't do that on any more basis than they can use to claim the opposite, then you've got a proposed ethical system that utterly fails to be normative. In other words, it has no bearing on morality, so it's a complete and total failure.

TC

[justifyothers]

It seems to me that there is no black and white. It is ALL grey. An act that seems good, may not really be and one that appears bad, may have positive outcome after all. I think any perspectives you can realize will help in each situation.

If I see a child crossing the street against the light and call out a warning about the approaching car, thus saving their life, was that a good act?

I suppose if I had a crystal ball, I might find out that this child will wind up nuking NYC in the year 2030, killing millions, so I should have just let them die. But I don't have any such device, and neither does anyone else, so the best we can do is base on actions on what is foreseeable. All things being equal, I would suggest that saving the child was the right thing to do.

TC

I agree. We can't know more than what we know.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The problem here isn't convincing them, it's making any claim at all that they're doing something wrong. If you can't do that on any more basis than they can use to claim the opposite, then you've got a proposed ethical system that utterly fails to be normative. In other words, it has no bearing on morality, so it's a complete and total failure.

TC

Sorry for the late response here. I kind of forgot about this thread. XD

It has plenty of bearing on morality. It essentially makes it entirely arbitrary (which, I'm sure you will agree is has plenty of effect on morality). The issue of course, comes in to play when this moral system is implemented on a large scale because it effectively eliminates law. Anarchism is hardly practical, but that doesn't suddenly make moral relativism illogical, as morality and law isn't based upon the most practical system out there, last time I checked.

[Thought Criminal]

The problem here isn't convincing them, it's making any claim at all that they're doing something wrong. If you can't do that on any more basis than they can use to claim the opposite, then you've got a proposed ethical system that utterly fails to be normative. In other words, it has no bearing on morality, so it's a complete and total failure.

TC

Sorry for the late response here. I kind of forgot about this thread. XD

It has plenty of bearing on morality. It essentially makes it entirely arbitrary (which, I'm sure you will agree is has plenty of effect on morality). The issue of course, comes in to play when this moral system is implemented on a large scale because it effectively eliminates law. Anarchism is hardly practical, but that doesn't suddenly make moral relativism illogical, as morality and law isn't based upon the most practical system out there, last time I checked.

I think you're agreeing that it's not normative, hence it's nonsense.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The problem here isn't convincing them, it's making any claim at all that they're doing something wrong. If you can't do that on any more basis than they can use to claim the opposite, then you've got a proposed ethical system that utterly fails to be normative. In other words, it has no bearing on morality, so it's a complete and total failure.

TC

Sorry for the late response here. I kind of forgot about this thread. XD

It has plenty of bearing on morality. It essentially makes it entirely arbitrary (which, I'm sure you will agree is has plenty of effect on morality). The issue of course, comes in to play when this moral system is implemented on a large scale because it effectively eliminates law. Anarchism is hardly practical, but that doesn't suddenly make moral relativism illogical, as morality and law isn't based upon the most practical system out there, last time I checked.

I think you're agreeing that it's not normative, hence it's nonsense.

TC

Being non-normative is its entire point, as being normative would taking one arbitrary view over another. But how is it non-sense simply because laws can't be created around it? Morality is based upon what is right and wrong, not its ability to be forced upon the masses. Thus, moral relativism shouldn't lose credibility simply because it can't do just that.

[Thought Criminal]

Being non-normative is its entire point, as being normative would taking one arbitrary view over another. But how is it non-sense simply because laws can't be created around it? Morality is based upon what is right and wrong, not its ability to be forced upon the masses. Thus, moral relativism shouldn't lose credibility simply because it can't do just that.

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

TC