Right and Wrong

[Thesavorofpan]

I have two questions that been bugging me. What is right and wrong? Why does it even matter?

 

[ChristineES]

Most of the time, right and wrong are judgment calls- objective. There are rare cases when right and wrong is absolute-including natural laws, mathematics, etc.

 

[Madhuri]

I have two questions that been bugging me. What is right and wrong? Why does it even matter?

Who knows? What matters will, in the end, depend on what is right or wrong.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Most of the time, right and wrong are judgment calls- objective. There are rare cases when right and wrong is absolute-including natural laws, mathematics, etc.

So you are saying that there are cases in which there are rights and wrond and there are cases in which its left up to the beholder?

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Who knows? What matters will, in the end, depend on what is right or wrong.

IF it does matter in the end, how do we tell whats right and wrong?

 

[Pegg]

In terms of 'ethics', what we individually consider to be right and wrong will determine our actions...thats why it matters.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have two questions that been bugging me. What is right and wrong? Why does it even matter?

"Right" and "wrong" have many contexts, all of them deontological (Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

From a deontological perspective we have imperatives or duties to do certain things; doing those things is "right" and failing to do them is "wrong."

If Kant was right, which I believe he was, many (if not all) of our conceptions of "moral right" and "moral wrong" ultimately fall back on logical contradictions to imperatives (i.e., if we value property then it's illogical and therefore wrong to steal).

A famous example of Kant's imperative (called the "categorical imperative") indeed involves stealing, and demonstrates that theft is actually irrational. It bases moral "wrongness" on behaving irrationally: if we agree with the concept of property then we can't agree with the concept of "theft" without contradicting our prior notion of "property."

Theft self-contradicts because it presupposes the concept of property; then in the same hand seeks to undermine the notion of property: "what's yours is now mine." This self-contradicts because theft makes the notion of property meaningless and therefore stealing something can't make it "yours" since the very notion of theft denies property exists; and at the same time theft requires property to exist to even be a concept. It's contradictory.

Thus Kant would say that stealing is "wrong" because we have an imperative to be rational if we value reason, and theft is irrational. Therefore we should not steal or else we are irrational.

There's a human element that Kant's categorical imperative doesn't address (that of our emotional response to theft being bad), but Kant did this on purpose: he wanted to show that most of what we typically consider to be morally wrong is objectively, demonstrably wrong by way of being irrational.

Edit: Just noticed all the redundancy in this post, I was pretty tired last night... was out late watching a band play.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

"Right" and "wrong" have many contexts, all of them deontological (Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

From a deontological perspective we have imperatives or duties to do certain things; doing those things is "right" and failing to do them is "wrong."

If Kant was right, which I believe he was, many (if not all) of our conceptions of "moral right" and "moral wrong" ultimately fall back on logical contradictions to imperatives (i.e., if we value property then it's illogical and therefore wrong to steal).

A famous example of Kant's imperative (called the "categorical imperative") indeed involves stealing, and demonstrates that theft is actually irrational. It bases moral "wrongness" on behaving irrationally: if we agree with the concept of property then we can't agree with the concept of "theft" without contradicting our prior notion of "property."

Theft self-contradicts because it presupposes the concept of property; then in the same hand seeks to undermine the notion of property: "what's yours is now mine." This self-contradicts because theft makes the notion of property meaningless and therefore stealing something can't make it "yours" since the very notion of theft denies property exists; and at the same time theft requires property to exist to even be a concept. It's contradictory.

Thus Kant would say that stealing is "wrong" because we have an imperative to be rational if we value reason, and theft is irrational. Therefore we should not steal or else we are irrational.

There's a human element that Kant's categorical imperative doesn't address (that of our emotional response to theft being bad), but Kant did this on purpose: he wanted to show that most of what we typically consider to be morally wrong is objectively, demonstrably wrong by way of being irrational.

Very well thought out post. Thank you !

 

[Madhuri]

IF it does matter in the end, how do we tell whats right and wrong?

Well since none of us know what is right or wrong, then perhaps we should just keep trying to do the best we can with what with what we have and what we care about.

 

[blackout]

Some people say right and wrong
when what they really mean is correct and incorrect.

'right and wrong' (as moral terms) are relative and subjective concepts.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have two questions that been bugging me. What is right and wrong? Why does it even matter?

Right and wrong are gauged by the consequences of an action, and whether or not the positive results outweigh the negative results.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Some people say right and wrong
when what they really mean is correct and incorrect.

'right and wrong' (as moral terms) are relative and subjective concepts.

Yes, the moral "right/wrong" and the mathematical "correct/incorrect" should not be conflated. Morality can't solve for x just as mathematics can't tell you how to be a good person.

Morality is not a series of YES/NO questions.

 

[arun]

We don't need any book to know which is right and which is wrong.We know it.It is within us.We may call it heart or soul .But we must listen to it .
Everyone is God's children .Whether it be good or bad ,we will get what we did to others in this life or in the coming reincarnations.

 

[ChristineES]

So you are saying that there are cases in which there are rights and wrong and there are cases in which its left up to the beholder?

If I were to drive 100 mph, that would be wrong on the highway but right on a racetrack.
That is the kind of thing I mean. But I like what someone else said about correct/incorrect.

 

[Beaudreaux]

"Right" and "wrong" have many contexts, all of them deontological (Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

From a deontological perspective we have imperatives or duties to do certain things; doing those things is "right" and failing to do them is "wrong."

If Kant was right, which I believe he was, many (if not all) of our conceptions of "moral right" and "moral wrong" ultimately fall back on logical contradictions to imperatives (i.e., if we value property then it's illogical and therefore wrong to steal).

A famous example of Kant's imperative (called the "categorical imperative") indeed involves stealing, and demonstrates that theft is actually irrational. It bases moral "wrongness" on behaving irrationally: if we agree with the concept of property then we can't agree with the concept of "theft" without contradicting our prior notion of "property."

Theft self-contradicts because it presupposes the concept of property; then in the same hand seeks to undermine the notion of property: "what's yours is now mine." This self-contradicts because theft makes the notion of property meaningless and therefore stealing something can't make it "yours" since the very notion of theft denies property exists; and at the same time theft requires property to exist to even be a concept. It's contradictory.

Thus Kant would say that stealing is "wrong" because we have an imperative to be rational if we value reason, and theft is irrational. Therefore we should not steal or else we are irrational.

There's a human element that Kant's categorical imperative doesn't address (that of our emotional response to theft being bad), but Kant did this on purpose: he wanted to show that most of what we typically consider to be morally wrong is objectively, demonstrably wrong by way of being irrational.

Edit: Just noticed all the redundancy in this post, I was pretty tired last night... was out late watching a band play.

Excellent post, though it does seem to move the problem back one more step. How does one determine that it is good or right to be rational and conversely "wrong" to be irrational?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Right and wrong are gauged by the consequences of an action, and whether or not the positive results outweigh the negative results.

But how does one evaluate the results? How are we to know which consequences are better than others?

 

[Beaudreaux]

We don't need any book to know which is right and which is wrong.We know it.It is within us.We may call it heart or soul .But we must listen to it .
Everyone is God's children .Whether it be good or bad ,we will get what we did to others in this life or in the coming reincarnations.

Why is it then that so many people disagree about what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Willamena]

I have two questions that been bugging me. What is right and wrong? Why does it even matter?

Right is when things on the grid match the colour of the grid; wrong is when they clash.

For more information on grids, consult the sacred text:
Principia Discordia - Page 49

 

[Thesavorofpan]

"Right" and "wrong" have many contexts, all of them deontological (Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

From a deontological perspective we have imperatives or duties to do certain things; doing those things is "right" and failing to do them is "wrong."

If Kant was right, which I believe he was, many (if not all) of our conceptions of "moral right" and "moral wrong" ultimately fall back on logical contradictions to imperatives (i.e., if we value property then it's illogical and therefore wrong to steal).

A famous example of Kant's imperative (called the "categorical imperative") indeed involves stealing, and demonstrates that theft is actually irrational. It bases moral "wrongness" on behaving irrationally: if we agree with the concept of property then we can't agree with the concept of "theft" without contradicting our prior notion of "property."

Theft self-contradicts because it presupposes the concept of property; then in the same hand seeks to undermine the notion of property: "what's yours is now mine." This self-contradicts because theft makes the notion of property meaningless and therefore stealing something can't make it "yours" since the very notion of theft denies property exists; and at the same time theft requires property to exist to even be a concept. It's contradictory.

Thus Kant would say that stealing is "wrong" because we have an imperative to be rational if we value reason, and theft is irrational. Therefore we should not steal or else we are irrational.

There's a human element that Kant's categorical imperative doesn't address (that of our emotional response to theft being bad), but Kant did this on purpose: he wanted to show that most of what we typically consider to be morally wrong is objectively, demonstrably wrong by way of being irrational.

Edit: Just noticed all the redundancy in this post, I was pretty tired last night... was out late watching a band play.

If I understand your post correctly. Theft is wrong becuase its contradiction and thus irrational and all Irrational behavior is wrong. If Bob was a theif, but he stole for he could eat. Trying to sustatin yourself is a rational behavior. So would Bob be wrong?

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Yes, the moral "right/wrong" and the mathematical "correct/incorrect" should not be conflated. Morality can't solve for x just as mathematics can't tell you how to be a good person.

Morality is not a series of YES/NO questions.

Then what kind of question would Morality be?