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

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

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.

You say that this decision is wrong and use the fact that it does more harm than good to justify that. Firstly, "harm" and "good" are essentially extensions of good and evil, subjectivity and all. Secondly, how much harm and good it does is an entirely arbitrary viewpoint which can't be used to justify murdering everyone you see as wrong. Someone could have a different view of the situation than you and there is nothing that makes your view more valid than his, as everything about that situation, the value of a life, the importance of happiness, the morality of murder, is entirely arbitrary.

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.

Not at all. If God did somehow exist, there is nothing to make his view of morality more valid than anyone else's.

[Thought Criminal]

You say that this decision is wrong and use the fact that it does more harm than good to justify that. Firstly, "harm" and "good" are essentially extensions of good and evil, subjectivity and all. Secondly, how much harm and good it does is an entirely arbitrary viewpoint which can't be used to justify murdering everyone you see as wrong. Someone could have a different view of the situation than you and there is nothing that makes your view more valid than his, as everything about that situation, the value of a life, the importance of happiness, the morality of murder, is entirely arbitrary.

Harm and good aren't absolute; they don't mean anything outside of harm-to and good-for. However, they're not subjective because beliefs about harm and good can be false. This means harm and good are objective.

If you wish to put forth a different view that is equally valid, you are free to try, but I assure you that I will likely find fault with it.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

You say that this decision is wrong and use the fact that it does more harm than good to justify that. Firstly, "harm" and "good" are essentially extensions of good and evil, subjectivity and all. Secondly, how much harm and good it does is an entirely arbitrary viewpoint which can't be used to justify murdering everyone you see as wrong. Someone could have a different view of the situation than you and there is nothing that makes your view more valid than his, as everything about that situation, the value of a life, the importance of happiness, the morality of murder, is entirely arbitrary.

Harm and good aren't absolute; they don't mean anything outside of harm-to and good-for. However, they're not subjective because beliefs about harm and good can be false. This means harm and good are objective.
TC

An action can be viewed as harmful towards a person by an outside observer, but viewed as good for the person by the person itself. One action is viewed as both harmful and good for a person. That makes it very subjective.

[Thought Criminal]

You say that this decision is wrong and use the fact that it does more harm than good to justify that. Firstly, "harm" and "good" are essentially extensions of good and evil, subjectivity and all. Secondly, how much harm and good it does is an entirely arbitrary viewpoint which can't be used to justify murdering everyone you see as wrong. Someone could have a different view of the situation than you and there is nothing that makes your view more valid than his, as everything about that situation, the value of a life, the importance of happiness, the morality of murder, is entirely arbitrary.

Harm and good aren't absolute; they don't mean anything outside of harm-to and good-for. However, they're not subjective because beliefs about harm and good can be false. This means harm and good are objective.
TC

An action can be viewed as harmful towards a person by an outside observer, but viewed as good for the person by the person itself. One action is viewed as both harmful and good for a person. That makes it very subjective.

As I pointed out, whether an action is harmful is an objective fact, distinct from how people view it.

Consider that there was a time when TV commercials promoted the health benefits of smoking. Doctors, or at least actors dressed like doctors, recommended smoking to relax you. In such an environment, a reasonable person might be led to believe that smoking was good for them because of its health benefits. They would view it as good. However this view would be based on factual errors.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

You say that this decision is wrong and use the fact that it does more harm than good to justify that. Firstly, "harm" and "good" are essentially extensions of good and evil, subjectivity and all. Secondly, how much harm and good it does is an entirely arbitrary viewpoint which can't be used to justify murdering everyone you see as wrong. Someone could have a different view of the situation than you and there is nothing that makes your view more valid than his, as everything about that situation, the value of a life, the importance of happiness, the morality of murder, is entirely arbitrary.

Harm and good aren't absolute; they don't mean anything outside of harm-to and good-for. However, they're not subjective because beliefs about harm and good can be false. This means harm and good are objective.
TC

An action can be viewed as harmful towards a person by an outside observer, but viewed as good for the person by the person itself. One action is viewed as both harmful and good for a person. That makes it very subjective.

As I pointed out, whether an action is harmful is an objective fact, distinct from how people view it.

Consider that there was a time when TV commercials promoted the health benefits of smoking. Doctors, or at least actors dressed like doctors, recommended smoking to relax you. In such an environment, a reasonable person might be led to believe that smoking was good for them because of its health benefits. They would view it as good. However this view would be based on factual errors.

TC

It would be based on factual error if "good for you" meant increasing your life expectancy, however that is just one viewpoint of what "good for you" means, and here again, subjectivity comes into play. Harmful implies that its benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks. It might not be important to a person to live a long life, so the shorter life expectancy smokers have might be outweighed by the fact that they like it. In that case, they don't consider it harmful, but obviously, many many others do. We can see a difference of opinions here. Neither is wrong. They are just different definitions of "good for you".

So, saying that smoking is not detrimental to your overall health and life expectancy is based on factual error. Saying it is good for you is not because what people consider good varies, and is very subjective. You cannot objectively say that smoking is "bad" for you unless you are implying that it will shorten your life expectancy and put you in what many consider "poor" health. These are inherently subjective terms and there is no way around that.

[Thought Criminal]

It would be based on factual error if "good for you" meant increasing your life expectancy, however that is just one viewpoint of what "good for you" means, and here again, subjectivity comes into play. Harmful implies that its benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks. It might not be important to a person to live a long life, so the shorter life expectancy smokers have might be outweighed by the fact that they like it. In that case, they don't consider it harmful, but obviously, many many others do. We can see a difference of opinions here. Neither is wrong. They are just different definitions of "good for you".

So, saying that smoking is not detrimental to your overall health and life expectancy is based on factual error. Saying it is good for you is not because what people consider good varies, and is very subjective. You cannot objectively say that smoking is "bad" for you unless you are implying that it will shorten your life expectancy and put you in what many consider "poor" health. These are inherently subjective terms and there is no way around that.

Yes, opinions vary, but that does not change the truth. Someone can be fully convinced that the negative impact of smoking is counteracted by its positive traits. Believing this to be true does not make it so. There is a fact of the matter that we are seeking, rather than making up as we go along.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

It would be based on factual error if "good for you" meant increasing your life expectancy, however that is just one viewpoint of what "good for you" means, and here again, subjectivity comes into play. Harmful implies that its benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks. It might not be important to a person to live a long life, so the shorter life expectancy smokers have might be outweighed by the fact that they like it. In that case, they don't consider it harmful, but obviously, many many others do. We can see a difference of opinions here. Neither is wrong. They are just different definitions of "good for you".

So, saying that smoking is not detrimental to your overall health and life expectancy is based on factual error. Saying it is good for you is not because what people consider good varies, and is very subjective. You cannot objectively say that smoking is "bad" for you unless you are implying that it will shorten your life expectancy and put you in what many consider "poor" health. These are inherently subjective terms and there is no way around that.

Yes, opinions vary, but that does not change the truth. Someone can be fully convinced that the negative impact of smoking is counteracted by its positive traits. Believing this to be true does not make it so. There is a fact of the matter that we are seeking, rather than making up as we go along.

TC

So why is it true that smoking's negative impact is greater than its positive? Why is one opinion more valid than another?

[Thought Criminal]

So why is it true that smoking's negative impact is greater than its positive? Why is one opinion more valid than another?

Again, my stance is that it is a matter of fact, something for us to discover, not create. We can have opinions about it but it is not a matter of opinion, even if we cannot resolve our disagreement.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

So why is it true that smoking's negative impact is greater than its positive? Why is one opinion more valid than another?

Again, my stance is that it is a matter of fact, something for us to discover, not create. We can have opinions about it but it is not a matter of opinion, even if we cannot resolve our disagreement.

TC

So we are back to stage one, and I have to ask again for logical proof of the validity of your opinion. I understand your stance, but I don't see any logic you can back it with.

[Thought Criminal]

So we are back to stage one, and I have to ask again for logical proof of the validity of your opinion. I understand your stance, but I don't see any logic you can back it with.

Think about it this way. If you had a crystal ball and could actually see the future, you would be able to add up the actual benefits and harms involved in each decision. To the extent that we can approximte this crystal ball, there is less room for subjectivity.

TC