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]

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

That would be true if benefits and harms weren't subjective terms. It's basically the same situation as right and wrong with different terms. There is no logical justification for objectively beneficial and objectively harmful things. You can't justify the objectivity of right and wrong through subjective terms.

[Thought Criminal]

That would be true if benefits and harms weren't subjective terms. It's basically the same situation as right and wrong with different terms. There is no logical justification for objectively beneficial and objectively harmful things. You can't justify the objectivity of right and wrong through subjective terms.

The logical justification for objectively beneficial and harmful things is that our interests are distinct from our beliefs about our interests, and the latter, like all beliefs, can be false. For an idea of what our interests consist of, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

That would be true if benefits and harms weren't subjective terms. It's basically the same situation as right and wrong with different terms. There is no logical justification for objectively beneficial and objectively harmful things. You can't justify the objectivity of right and wrong through subjective terms.

The logical justification for objectively beneficial and harmful things is that our interests are distinct from our beliefs about our interests, and the latter, like all beliefs, can be false. For an idea of what our interests consist of, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs.

TC

The emboldened is what you are intending to prove. Merely restating that and giving an example of an attempt at making "beneficial" and "harmful" objective doesn't qualify as logical proof.

I don't see why Maslow has the authority to determine what is objectively beneficial, especially when you consider the diversity of the human race (which makes generalizations about said race almost pointless). Not all humans inherently need, or should strive for the things on that hierarchy and there is nothing there to show otherwise.

[Thought Criminal]

interests are distinct from our beliefs about our interests, and the latter, like all beliefs, can be false.

The emboldened is what you are intending to prove. Merely restating that and giving an example of an attempt at making "beneficial" and "harmful" objective doesn't qualify as logical proof.

No, I already proved the bolded text using the example of believing smoking was in my interests but being mistaken due to misinformation about its health effects.

The key here is that any apparent subjectivity of moral facts is an epistemological matter, not an ontological one. In other words, it represents current limitations to what is known, not anything about whether there is a fact of the matter. What's subjective is our beliefs, not the facts. With sufficient knowledge and analysis, we would in principle be able to determine the facts so we can believe them. This is what ethics is all about.

I don't see why Maslow has the authority to determine what is objectively beneficial, especially when you consider the diversity of the human race (which makes generalizations about said race almost pointless). Not all humans inherently need, or should strive for the things on that hierarchy and there is nothing there to show otherwise.

If you want to be as irrationally critical as a fundamentalist rejecting evolution, then we should end this conversation right now. You can't possibly claim that there are no universals among humans that constitute a human nature that applies to us all.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

interests are distinct from our beliefs about our interests, and the latter, like all beliefs, can be false.

The emboldened is what you are intending to prove. Merely restating that and giving an example of an attempt at making "beneficial" and "harmful" objective doesn't qualify as logical proof.

No, I already proved the bolded text using the example of believing smoking was in my interests but being mistaken due to misinformation about its health effects.
TC

When was that proven? I pointed out the subjectivity of "benefits" and "harms", which lead us here, to you trying to prove that they aren't subjective. Neither side has actually proved anything about smoking here, as that point will be determined by the one we are making right now.

What's subjective is our beliefs, not the facts. With sufficient knowledge and analysis, we would in principle be able to determine the facts so we can believe them. This is what ethics is all about.

Yes, and things like "smoking causes lung cancer" and "smokers have shorter life spans" are facts. Things like "smoking is bad" are subjective because there is no absolute definition of "bad".

If you want to be as irrationally critical as a fundamentalist rejecting evolution, then we should end this conversation right now. You can't possibly claim that there are no universals among humans that constitute a human nature that applies to us all.

Of course there are. Humans, in general, want to keep living, and want to reproduce. These are evolutionary mechanisms that

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

No, I already proved the bolded text using the example of believing smoking was in my interests but being mistaken due to misinformation about its health effects.
TC

When was that proven? I pointed out the subjectivity of "benefits" and "harms", which lead us here, to you trying to prove that they aren't subjective. Neither side has actually proved anything about smoking here, as that point will be determined by the one we are making right now.

What's subjective is our beliefs, not the facts. With sufficient knowledge and analysis, we would in principle be able to determine the facts so we can believe them. This is what ethics is all about.

Yes, and things like "smoking causes lung cancer" and "smokers have shorter life spans" are facts. Things like "smoking is bad" are subjective because there is no absolute definition of "bad".

If you want to be as irrationally critical as a fundamentalist rejecting evolution, then we should end this conversation right now. You can't possibly claim that there are no universals among humans that constitute a human nature that applies to us all.

I would say that there is such a thing as human nature, wanting to continue living, and wanting to reproduce being the core of said nature, but that nature isn't constant in all humans. There are many who don't share the goals that constitute basic human nature. I don't see why these people who stray from an evolutionary mechanism, which is heavily biased towards the importance of life, are suddenly wrong about what is beneficial to them.

[Thought Criminal]

When was that proven? I pointed out the subjectivity of "benefits" and "harms", which lead us here, to you trying to prove that they aren't subjective. Neither side has actually proved anything about smoking here, as that point will be determined by the one we are making right now.

The example shows that we can and do distinguish between what people believe about their interests and their actual interests.

Yes, and things like "smoking causes lung cancer" and "smokers have shorter life spans" are facts. Things like "smoking is bad" are subjective because there is no absolute definition of "bad".

It is also a fact that, ceteris paribus, getting lung cancer and dying prematurely are bad things. This isn't particularly controversial, and the only way you can pretend it's "subjective' is to ignore the fact that it is, not coincidentally, true for almost any subject you pick. It's like saying "Bob needs air to live" is subjective because it only applies to Bob, ignoring the fact that it's true for us all.

I would say that there is such a thing as human nature, wanting to continue living, and wanting to reproduce being the core of said nature, but that nature isn't constant in all humans. There are many who don't share the goals that constitute basic human nature. I don't see why these people who stray from an evolutionary mechanism, which is heavily biased towards the importance of life, are suddenly wrong about what is beneficial to them.

[/quote]
I didn't say we were all rubber stamps, I said there was a broad base of commonality, which is why I'm entirely comfortable saying that getting cancer and dying prematurely are bad. As for the aspects that aren't entirely universal, these can be handled through intersubjective compromise.

TC

[olavisjo]

It is also a fact that, ceteris paribus, getting lung cancer and dying prematurely are bad things.

They may be bad things but they are not wrong things, in fact they are a small price to pay for the supermodel who lives in a very tense environment and needs her cigarettes to control her nerves and weight. She will be more than happy to cut the last 10 years off her life in exchange for a successful career.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

When was that proven? I pointed out the subjectivity of "benefits" and "harms", which lead us here, to you trying to prove that they aren't subjective. Neither side has actually proved anything about smoking here, as that point will be determined by the one we are making right now.

The example shows that we can and do distinguish between what people believe about their interests and their actual interests.

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

It is also a fact that, ceteris paribus, getting lung cancer and dying prematurely are bad things. This isn't particularly controversial, and the only way you can pretend it's "subjective' is to ignore the fact that it is, not coincidentally, true for almost any subject you pick. It's like saying "Bob needs air to live" is subjective because it only applies to Bob, ignoring the fact that it's true for us all.

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.

I didn't say we were all rubber stamps, I said there was a broad base of commonality, which is why I'm entirely comfortable saying that getting cancer and dying prematurely are bad. As for the aspects that aren't entirely universal, these can be handled through intersubjective compromise.

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.

[Thought Criminal]

It is also a fact that, ceteris paribus, getting lung cancer and dying prematurely are bad things.

They may be bad things but they are not wrong things, in fact they are a small price to pay for the supermodel who lives in a very tense environment and needs her cigarettes to control her nerves and weight. She will be more than happy to cut the last 10 years off her life in exchange for a successful career.

Suggestion: look up "ceteris paribus".

TC