Inherently wrong actions?

[Quintessence]

Anything that harms others is inherently wrong.

I've always found this profoundly problematic because there is no such thing as an action that does not harm others given the laws this universe is governed by. All gains require losses; all benefits result in harms somewhere else.

 

[Orbit]

I've always found this profoundly problematic because there is no such thing as an action that does not harm others given the laws this universe is governed by. All gains require losses; all benefits result in harms somewhere else.

No. Life is not a zero sum game. One person does not lose because I refuse to harm another. This is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are there any actions that you think are inherently wrong?
I do not.

You're doing it again......you're giving me nothing to rail against.
I agree that in the religious sense, nothing is inherently wrong....or right.
Of course, by my personal values, there are right & wrong acts.

 

[Quintessence]

No. Life is not a zero sum game. One person does not lose because I refuse to harm another. This is fallacious reasoning.

It's not, and given it is painfully easy to come up with examples to the contrary, I can only surmise you've got your mind made up and there is little sense in arguing with you about it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

To ourselves. Who else?

Ok, so you are saying one of two things here.

1) the only inherently wrong actions are ones that are detrimental to myself. This leaves everything you can get away with as 'right'

2) I have a duty to myself to not perform actions that would be detrimental to others. This would require more than an assertion. On its face I totally disagree, I have no such duty to myself.

That is actually a fairly rare situation. When it happens, of course it will be necessary to weight the pros and cons and make a judgement call. Considering, among other things, how well the people involved may shrugh off the damage.

I'm thinking you do not work in the business fields, or trade in real estate. I take it you have never been in a fight for something worth fighting for. I take it you have never loved and lost. This is every day life.

Context is indeed important. But it is also an inherent part of many actions.

Without context there is no inherency. There are no Universal's, and that was the OP topic.

 

[Orbit]

It's not, and given it is painfully easy to come up with examples to the contrary, I can only surmise you've got your mind made up and there is little sense in arguing with you about it.

It is a fallacy. I can demonstrate that it is fallacious. I refuse to rob my next door neighbor. No one loses. I don't lose and neither does anyone else. I refuse to kill my neighbor. No one loses.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, so you are saying one of two things here.

1) the only inherently wrong actions are ones that are detrimental to myself. This leaves everything you can get away with as 'right'

I would only agree with that by a rather unusual understanding of "to get away with".

2) I have a duty to myself to not perform actions that would be detrimental to others.

Yep!

This would require more than an assertion. On its face I totally disagree, I have no such duty to myself.

I guess I disagree. But moral duties are not always self-evident.

As a matter of fact, one of the main limitations of morality is the ability to rationally perceive the implications and choices.

I'm thinking you do not work in the business fields, or trade in real estate. I take it you have never been in a fight for something worth fighting for. I take it you have never loved and lost. This is every day life.

I am not quite that inhuman. I do however acknowledge that certain renunciations are morally necessary.

Without context there is no inherency. There are no Universal's, and that was the OP topic.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[Acim]

Yes, assuming that you accept the environment that makes the action possible as part of the action itself.

Since your examples don't readily explain this, are you implying the environment itself is inherently wrong?

Rape, for instance, is by definiton wrong.

I would say it is not wrong by definition. You assert this about any (alleged) wrong, that by definition it is wrong. Because I generally agree that it is (relatively) wrong, then that is the trick of this debate. Thus far, you haven't shown it to be inherently wrong.

So is nurturing cruelty in a more general sense.

So is Intentionally misleading others out of personal convenience.

Same as above

 

[Acim]

Killing with malice aforethought (i.e., murder). Rape. Stealing your neighbor's Mercedes just because you want it. Arson. Etc., etc. See state and federal penal codes for more examples.

Can you explain why these are inherently wrong?

 

[LuisDantas]

Since your examples don't readily explain this, are you implying the environment itself is inherently wrong?

No. I meant what I said. That some actions can only happen given certain circunstances. The question is therefore whether they qualify as inherently possible, not whether they are inherently wrong.

I would say it is not wrong by definition.

How would that work? When could rape possibly not be wrong?

 

[Acim]

The problem with the phrase 'inherently wrong' is it is incoherent to begin with, so given that there is no real purpose in using it. At least in this context.

Wrong is only definable when used to describe something concrete, like mathematics. 2+2=3 is 'inherently wrong'. When 'wrong' is used in the context of a value judgement, for the 'wrongness' to be 'inherent' would require a defined and measurable objective criteria of what 'right' means, that is impossible by definition.

I agree with this. Well most of it. I don't think it is impossible to define what is right. Though I guess it boils down to what actually makes for objectivity.

 

[Acim]

I'll pick murder for $500 Alex.

What makes for it to be inherently wrong?

Just to be clear for anyone else reading this. If you state something, please (try to) explain why it is inherently wrong.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I would only agree with that by a rather unusual understanding of "to get away with".

And what understanding would that be? You drop your wallet, I pick it up, no witnesses, oh look 500 dollars in cash, now I have a new ps4 and dinner at a nice restaurant. Where are the consequences?

I guess I disagree. But moral duties are not always self-evident.

As a matter of fact, one of the main limitations of morality is the ability to rationally perceive the implications and choices.

So, I assume you either have no rational case for your assertion, or you are choosing to withhold it?

I can rationally perceive the implications of my 'choices' better than most, being that I am ****ing brilliant, but that alone doesn't offer any moral valuation on either side of the coin.

I am not quite that inhuman. I do however acknowledge that certain renunciations are morally necessary.

So you agree with me now?

Not sure what you mean here.

Only that context is everything here. When we are talking about what is right and what is wrong in terms of moral valuation, blanket statements and generalizations offer no information. Nothing can be inherent(necessary) to something that isn't itself objectively defined. 'Wrongness' is a judgement call, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I agree with this. Well most of it. I don't think it is impossible to define what is right.

Give it a shot then. I double dog dare you.

 

[LuisDantas]

And what understanding would that be? You drop your wallet, I pick it up, no witnesses, oh look 500 dollars in cash, now I have a new ps4 and dinner at a nice restaurant. Where are the consequences?

You have chosen to hurt my wealth, thereby giving me that much more reason to lose my way and end up causing harm to myself and others.

So you agree with me now?

Obviously not.

 

[Acim]

No. I meant what I said. That some actions can only happen given certain circunstances. The question is therefore whether they qualify as inherently possible, not whether they are inherently wrong.

I had to read through the rest of the thread to see a) how @Satans_Serrated_Edge was responding and b) see if anyone else was responding. I'm not seeing you explain much by way of inherently wrong.

How would that work? When could rape possibly not be wrong?

If a person desires to be raped. Yep, I know, odd. Very rare (I think). But I've experienced conversations with (2) people that were expressing this. Googled it, and found it wasn't just those 2 people that had this fantasy. In my discussions, it was me trying to determine if it was strictly role playing or actual. To be honest, I'm not clear and see it as a gray area. From what I understood in the conversation, if the person knew it was a set up (role play), it wouldn't be appealing to them. But also was able to get enough info that had the person convey that if it were brutal and not (for them) sexual it would be very unappealing. I think there are many degrees of what is possibly rape, such that whatever is the most extreme version, I do believe a majority (I'd like to think everyone) would say it is wrong. However, there are two reasons why I can't agree with it being inherently wrong. Possibly 3 reasons, but I'm not going to bring up the third right now. One (that actually relates to the third reason) is it is possible that there are people living amongst us that do desire the most extreme version to be done to them, therefore not inherently wrong, in their opinion. I do see this as hypothetical. Second reason is because there are people willing to commit the act (be the aggressor) and I don't believe that for them it is inherently wrong. I don't see this as hypothetical. Nor do I see it as a situation where everyone else is wrong and they are (inherently) right. For me, it's like any situation where aggression is seen as warranted. I probably have my own version of that (which doesn't harm anyone) but I do recognize it as detriment to myself. Yet, in the moment, I'm likely to justify that my aggression was warranted then.

 

[Quintessence]

Give it a shot then. I double dog dare you.

It's not really that hard. When a human calls something "right" it means they approve of it in some way, whether it is that human finding it useful, valuable, accurate, correct, or some such similar thing. From this, it is quite easy to come up with an operational definition of what "right" means for the purpose of a particular study. As far as I'm aware, this is already done in the social sciences.

 

[Acim]

Give it a shot then. I double dog dare you.

I feel like it could be wall of text.

For sound bite version, I'm tempted to go with: whatever happens, happens (perfectly) and is therefore right.

How's that grab you?

 

[LuisDantas]

I had to read through the rest of the thread to see a) how @Satans_Serrated_Edge was responding and b) see if anyone else was responding. I'm not seeing you explain much by way of inherently wrong.



If a person desires to be raped. Yep, I know, odd. Very rare (I think). But I've experienced conversations with (2) people that were expressing this. Googled it, and found it wasn't just those 2 people that had this fantasy. In my discussions, it was me trying to determine if it was strictly role playing or actual. To be honest, I'm not clear and see it as a gray area. From what I understood in the conversation, if the person knew it was a set up (role play), it wouldn't be appealing to them. But also was able to get enough info that had the person convey that if it were brutal and not (for them) sexual it would be very unappealing. I think there are many degrees of what is possibly rape, such that whatever is the most extreme version, I do believe a majority (I'd like to think everyone) would say it is wrong. However, there are two reasons why I can't agree with it being inherently wrong. Possibly 3 reasons, but I'm not going to bring up the third right now. One (that actually relates to the third reason) is it is possible that there are people living amongst us that do desire the most extreme version to be done to them, therefore not inherently wrong, in their opinion. I do see this as hypothetical. Second reason is because there are people willing to commit the act (be the aggressor) and I don't believe that for them it is inherently wrong. I don't see this as hypothetical. Nor do I see it as a situation where everyone else is wrong and they are (inherently) right. For me, it's like any situation where aggression is seen as warranted. I probably have my own version of that (which doesn't harm anyone) but I do recognize it as detriment to myself. Yet, in the moment, I'm likely to justify that my aggression was warranted then.

Nope, that does not work. You are attempting to trick your way out of the definition of rape.

Ethics are not nearly as arbitrary as you want to present them, although there is an intellectual challenge in understanding and expressing them.

 

[Acim]

Nope, that does not work. You are attempting to trick your way out of the definition of rape.

I disagree. What I conveyed was that people desired to be taken sexually against their will, and found this appealing. Let me know how that counters the definition of rape.

Ethics are not nearly as arbitrary as you want to present them, although there is an intellectual challenge in understanding and expressing them.

You are mistaken if you think I'm saying ethics are arbitrary. I believe I said they are relative. Just not inherent/universal, though that is debatable if allowing for theology.