• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Inherently wrong actions?

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Can you explain why these are inherently wrong?
The acts I named are inherently wrong (immoral) because they are among those things that I wouldn't want someone to do to me (and which the vast majority of people would not want done to themselves). It's called the Golden Rule.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
The acts I named are inherently wrong (immoral) because they are among those things that I wouldn't want someone to do to me (and which the vast majority of people would not want done to themselves). It's called the Golden Rule.

I don't believe we'd agree on how the Golden Rule works, at least initially. So, this is me saying that we might not even agree on what the Rule is. But feel free to bring it into the discussion (directly).

I say 'directly' parenthetically because indirectly I see it has been brought up. Such as with your post and the implied concession that some people could plausible desire the things that you are saying vast majority would not done to themselves.

I will note that one of the reasons (I think primary reason) I started this thread is because of how much I detest the idea of punishment. I would think the vast majority of people do not want punishment done to themselves. Yet, we all (or many of us) accept it as 'way thing are.' And justify it, I think, on notion that if I did do something wrong (by local standards), I'd be willing to accept the punishment. But quite plausible that whoever is doling out the punishment is themselves engaging in a wrongdoing, such that we need people to punish the punishers. Yet, we don't really live in that existence, and so just accept that punishment is consequential to wrongdoing. When it's plausible that wrongdoing is consequential to our notion that punishment is worthy judgment of another. That harm, limiting freedom is, in some cases fully justifiable. Which gets back to how the Golden Rule works (and in essence is never not working).
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Not sure what your point is Acim?

Because the human animal has an inherently basic nature for survival, which would make stealing, killing, etc., in such a case, not necessarily wrong or right. It in no way remains unclassified when we reach group living.

Obviously since different groups are making the call as to what it considers "wrong," - it will very over topography, and time.

However as the world grows smaller with technology, - world norms are accepted. Thus rape is always wrong. Rape play is obviously not actually rape, as it has to be against someone's will.

Threads like this have no real purpose.

It some male throws Acim down and rapes him, sticking you-know-what into his mouth and backside against his will, he will know it is wrong. PERIOD! He won't be questioning if it was perhaps right.

*
 
Last edited:
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.

Sure, but the problem here is the very wide range of often mutually exclusive versions of what individuals find acceptable. We are talking about objective/universal 'right'.
 
To all, why is it 'wrong' to cause harm?

So what if it's rape play or the old fashion kind?

So far there is a lot of attempted heart string tugging, plenty of finger wagging, and a fair share of heavy purposeful sighing(figuratively speaking) but nothing purely logical.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Yeah, I wasn't referencing rape play.

Posts like yours have no real purpose.

Rape has to be against someone's will, or the ability to give consent to a sex act, - that is the definition, all else is not rape.

So there you have it.

*
 
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?

I'd actually tend to agree with that. Morality is arbitrary feel good stuff, a pillow for the hard hard world. To say something is 'inherently wrong' in the world is really just being mad at how the world is. I aint mad bro :)
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
All moral judgements and values are relative to mutual goals, so I don't believe in universal wrongs. I do believe in things that are frequently if not totally contrary to living as a social species and take a utilitarian / consequentialist approach to determining help vs. harm. But everyone must agree with the value I place on a healthy society for it to be universal and that's obviously not the case. That's a trough you can lead someone to but not make them drink.

I don't think subjective morality is the same as arbitrary morality, however. If you can find mutual goals you can make logical arguments for achieving them.
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
To all, why is it 'wrong' to cause harm?

So what if it's rape play or the old fashion kind?

So far there is a lot of attempted heart string tugging, plenty of finger wagging, and a fair share of heavy purposeful sighing(figuratively speaking) but nothing purely logical.

Asking why it is wrong to cause harm is equivalent to asking why it is harmful to cause harm.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
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.
For one thing murder is against the law, and breaking the law is wrong. For another, it conforms to one of my definitions of wrong:

WRONG
adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good:
a wrong deed.

In my moral system murder (the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought) is not in accordance with what is morally right or good, and therefore wrong.


.
 
Last edited:

Sees

Dragonslayer
Well it would be I guess, if those words didn't have completely different definitions.

Haven't seen a definition or etymological explanation that paints them as completely different...it would be odd since they are not. The word means what it means based on long-standing cultural context and hasn't really been altered - even though it now has Abrahamic filters for most. Right and wrong are old Germanic terms relative to the old worldview and are not very complicated. Not very subjective and not all that susceptible to moral relativism.
 
harm

[hahrm]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt:
to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:
to harm one's reputation.


vs


wrong
rôNG/
adjective
  1. 1.
    not correct or true.
    "that is the wrong answer"
    synonyms: incorrect, mistaken, in error, erroneous, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, fallacious,wide of the mark, off target, unsound, faulty;
    informalout
    "the wrong answer"
  2. 2.
    unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
    "they were wrong to take the law into their own hands"
    synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illicit, criminal, dishonest, dishonorable, corrupt; More
adverb
  1. 1.
    in an unsuitable or undesirable manner or direction.
    "what am I doing wrong?"
noun
  1. 1.
    an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action.
    "I have done you a great wrong"
    synonyms: misdeed, offense, injury, crime, transgression, violation, peccadillo, sin; More
verb
  1. 1.
    act unjustly or dishonestly toward (someone).
    "please forgive me these things and the people I have wronged"


    • I get how you could marry them to create some (still arbitrary) moral system for yourself, or adopt one(more likely), but lets not be disingenuous and pretend these words are synonyms.
Is a comet that destroys a planet 'inherently wrong'? It's certainly harmful. No 'harm' is caused by theft from someone who has more than enough to sustain themselves. Is it wrong to steal from the rich?

These are different words with different meanings.
 
Last edited:
Top