Is there no right or wrong?

[sledheavy]

I've been told that a common empiricist view is intended to point out that there is no right or wrong, there are just direct and indirect consequences for the decisions we make.

Any input on the topic?

[Greatest I Am]

I've been told that a common empiricist view is intended to point out that there is no right or wrong, there are just direct and indirect consequences for the decisions we make.

Any input on the topic?

Completely disagree.
You would have to define direct and indirect.

You should also supply an example of your premises.

Let's say I steal your money and run away and am not caught.

How does your system deal with the fact that I have no negative consequences.

Regards
DL

[sledheavy]

I've been told that a common empiricist view is intended to point out that there is no right or wrong, there are just direct and indirect consequences for the decisions we make.

Any input on the topic?

Completely disagree.
You would have to define direct and indirect.

You should also supply an example of your premises.

Let's say I steal your money and run away and am not caught.

How does your system deal with the fact that I have no negative consequences.

Regards
DL

Well, hense, me being told about this system just recently, lol.

I suppose I say the more one tends to steal the more of a particular mindset that person develops about stealing. That's an indirect consequence.

We might have to consider that the person who steals considers morality as less often as they consider getting caught. But that's as easily stated as: though they don't get caught for all that they do, they might rarely ever consider it based on how they view their actions.

They have a vendetta against a shop keeper....or, they find their actions credible because they're stealing from people they're racist against. Or just for whatever reason.

Some people might assume that these things tend to happen, but never base the reason behind it. Maybe the one stealing or even killing was never told right from wrong, and the empiricists view states that they go off of pure drive and natural instinct rather than lack of moral intent.

Before human beings discovered a concept of morality.....what did they go off of? That's a whole new idea to consider in this topic.

There apear to be different ways to consider this criteria in general.

[ST88]

Before human beings discovered a concept of morality.....what did they go off of? That's a whole new idea to consider in this topic.

It's more likely that a certain type of morality, or perhaps "sense of right and wrong" was hard wired into early humans via evolution in order to survive as a pack animal. State a moral position or behavior, and there's usually an evolutionary psychology behind it. There would also be genetic variations with these positions or behaviors that could be manipulated by environmental factors.

In this view, there is no universal set of rights and wrongs, but kind of a hazy sense of the cross between group survival and individual empathy that gave rise to separate codes of morals in separate groups, many of which are similar because of the hard-wiring.

[Greatest I Am]

It may be better for this topic to look at children.

Born Perfect they grow towards their first sin.

Since Jesus died for the forgiveness, we use the word sin carefully.

I believe that children are instinctively good.

I myself was a black sheep, always in trouble. Saying this I think that negative behavior is learned or circumstances occur in life that draw us to do "evil".

Like the best good then, evil must be learnt.
It should be easy then to eradicate evil. Just one well taught generation and evil should disappear. The man made evil that is.


Regards
DL

[sledheavy]

What I find more interesting is that human society grew into enforcing morals and laws, and now that's an incredibly grey area. Say...for instance, someone taking someone else to court and prosecuting for falling on their floor, etc. It might morally be in vain, but it's a part of our judicial system.

Maybe if we had a way of judging based solely on moral intent apart from our legal system. Idk.

Imagine 12 people from this forum in a jury. That's probably an all nighter, lol.

[Greatest I Am]

What I find more interesting is that human society grew into enforcing morals and laws, and now that's an incredibly grey area. Say...for instance, someone taking someone else to court and prosecuting for falling on their floor, etc. It might morally be in vain, but it's a part of our judicial system.

Maybe if we had a way of judging based solely on moral intent apart from our legal system. Idk.

Imagine 12 people from this forum in a jury. That's probably an all nighter, lol.

Give to Cesar what is Cesar, give to God what is God's.
Spiritual morality leads political morality. If there is a conflict, God's law should be supreme.

Regards
DL

[sledheavy]

What I find more interesting is that human society grew into enforcing morals and laws, and now that's an incredibly grey area. Say...for instance, someone taking someone else to court and prosecuting for falling on their floor, etc. It might morally be in vain, but it's a part of our judicial system.

Maybe if we had a way of judging based solely on moral intent apart from our legal system. Idk.

Imagine 12 people from this forum in a jury. That's probably an all nighter, lol.

Give to Cesar what is Cesar, give to God what is God's.
Spiritual morality leads political morality. If there is a conflict, God's law should be supreme.

Regards
DL

Ah, well now I think we've hit a credible topic. Being that this is a country founded as one nation, under god. I.e. man handles the mundane politics and god handles the supreme judgement, it's easier to analyze the criteria.

Morality is still far from consistant. That's why we have people who have intent on suing, but don't consider the effect on the economy. Road rage, drug abuse. Our statistics are staggering, due in part to selfish intent, and no consideration of morality.

And what's the typical mentality of the do gooder? It's what my dad always said when he lived here. In the end, god will handle the problem. And yet, people aren't at all satisfied. Students are shot, hate crimes committed, and the rich can still get a lighter sentence. When we get upset at the faults of the judicial system it's easy to say, well god can handle it. Still doesn't mean people will get what they diserve in life. And to an athiest they get off with no supreme judgement.

We need morality as a basis and as an excuse to judge others based on our system which was founded by god fearing people. Take morality out of the equation and keep only the idea of a bureaucratic society founded by god, and we've got a huge problem.

[Greatest I Am]

What I find more interesting is that human society grew into enforcing morals and laws, and now that's an incredibly grey area. Say...for instance, someone taking someone else to court and prosecuting for falling on their floor, etc. It might morally be in vain, but it's a part of our judicial system.

GIA wrote
Why is this in vain and since it speaks to political justice has no place here.

Maybe if we had a way of judging based solely on moral intent apart from our legal system. Idk.

GIA wrote
Hard to show but the political system tries with "Menes ray" Intent to harm must be shown.

Imagine 12 people from this forum in a jury. That's probably an all nighter, lol.

Give to Cesar what is Cesar, give to God what is God's.
Spiritual morality leads political morality. If there is a conflict, God's law should be supreme.

Regards
DL

Ah, well now I think we've hit a credible topic. Being that this is a country founded as one nation, under god. I.e. man handles the mundane politics and god handles the supreme judgement, it's easier to analyze the criteria.

Morality is still far from consistent. That's why we have people who have intent on suing, but don't consider the effect on the economy. Road rage, drug abuse. Our statistics are staggering, due in part to selfish intent, and no consideration of morality.

GIA wrote
Here is an area where stats are actually improving and yet the perception is that they are worse. Police chiefs have been complaining about this for years.

And what's the typical mentality of the do good-er? It's what my dad always said when he lived here. In the end, god will handle the problem. And yet, people aren't at all satisfied. Students are shot, hate crimes committed, and the rich can still get a lighter sentence. When we get upset at the faults of the judicial system it's easy to say, well god can handle it. Still doesn't mean people will get what they deserve in life. And to an atheist they get off with no supreme judgement.

We need morality as a basis and as an excuse to judge others based on our system which was founded by god fearing people. Take morality out of the equation and keep only the idea of a bureaucratic society founded by god, and we've got a huge problem.

Gloom and doom.

As God looks down on us, we can be sure that He is pleased with things or He would end them.

In fact a Perfect God can only create a reality that is Perfect.
We learn of good and evil, we reproduce. These are God's main instructions to us. We are doing quite well in these areas.

Remember that scripture says that there will be wars and rumors etc. do not worry about these things They look after themselves. Your own soul is what comes first.

Regards
DL

[justifyothers]

What I find more interesting is that human society grew into enforcing morals and laws, and now that's an incredibly grey area. Say...for instance, someone taking someone else to court and prosecuting for falling on their floor, etc. It might morally be in vain, but it's a part of our judicial system.

GIA wrote
Why is this in vain and since it speaks to political justice has no place here.

Maybe if we had a way of judging based solely on moral intent apart from our legal system. Idk.

GIA wrote
Hard to show but the political system tries with "Menes ray" Intent to harm must be shown.

Imagine 12 people from this forum in a jury. That's probably an all nighter, lol.

Give to Cesar what is Cesar, give to God what is God's.
Spiritual morality leads political morality. If there is a conflict, God's law should be supreme.

Regards
DL

Ah, well now I think we've hit a credible topic. Being that this is a country founded as one nation, under god. I.e. man handles the mundane politics and god handles the supreme judgement, it's easier to analyze the criteria.

Morality is still far from consistent. That's why we have people who have intent on suing, but don't consider the effect on the economy. Road rage, drug abuse. Our statistics are staggering, due in part to selfish intent, and no consideration of morality.

GIA wrote
Here is an area where stats are actually improving and yet the perception is that they are worse. Police chiefs have been complaining about this for years.

And what's the typical mentality of the do good-er? It's what my dad always said when he lived here. In the end, god will handle the problem. And yet, people aren't at all satisfied. Students are shot, hate crimes committed, and the rich can still get a lighter sentence. When we get upset at the faults of the judicial system it's easy to say, well god can handle it. Still doesn't mean people will get what they deserve in life. And to an atheist they get off with no supreme judgement.

We need morality as a basis and as an excuse to judge others based on our system which was founded by god fearing people. Take morality out of the equation and keep only the idea of a bureaucratic society founded by god, and we've got a huge problem.

Gloom and doom.

As God looks down on us, we can be sure that He is pleased with things or He would end them.

In fact a Perfect God can only create a reality that is Perfect.
We learn of good and evil, we reproduce. These are God's main instructions to us. We are doing quite well in these areas.

Remember that scripture says that there will be wars and rumors etc. do not worry about these things They look after themselves. Your own soul is what comes first.

Regards
DL

I agree with GIA on this last comment, and this world MAY be "perfect" for what God has intended us to learn from it.....but it is by no means perfect in the traditional sense of that word. Nor can it be, because man refuses to lean on God for guidance and follow His laws.

We create our own reality of laws and bend morality to suit ourselves. The judicial system is driven by politics, therefore cannot be successful in terms of equality and justice. Any time we replace God's laws with our own, we ARE doomed.

Everybody has knowledge of right and wrong. I say it's God's laws written in our hearts. Others may use the word "conscience", whatever term we use - We know the difference. We may or may not pay a penalty here on earth for a crime, but ultimately, we need to let God judge that, as we are incapable of perfect judgement. The "right and wrong" in life comes from within