As my first new thread, I decided to post something of importance to me. In my school we always debate this. It might have been a topic already posted.

I am always interested in reading things that have a scientific approach to ethics.

What defines right or wrong? How are actions classified as either being right or wrong?

Ethics can be defined as moral principles followed by humanity. Ethics encourages a sense of society which in fact leads into collective rights rather than individualism. Ethics defines actions as right or wrong. However, generally worry about themselves which can be called as being selfish. But because we follow ethics, now we, generally, do things for others which could be linked to collective rights.

Things that helps society can be classified as right under ethics and vice versa for the wrong things. When people break this collective rights and "thinking-about-others" chain and think about themselves; then they are "evil" (antagonist). While the hero (protogonist) generally is someone who helps others and dedicates his/her life for others.

The thing that puzzles me is that humans ARE selfish, they only care about themselves. This natural attitude has helped us survive. Now if you dont belive about the selfish part, then let me give you an example: Two people who have starved for days see a bread which is only enough for one person, now in 99/100 cases, the person who first finds the bread will take it for themselves. This surely implies that we only care about our needs first. This is being selfish in ethics (think about it).

Now everyone thinks differently, maybe donating money to the Children's Aid Donation might seem like a good idea for me, but maybe not for you. So, when the definition for right and wrong is different for all of us, then how can we blame a person for doign things that are right for him/her. For example: A person, Y, thinks that X killed his/her parents. But X is this guy who helps others and is defined in ETHICS as the GOOD guy and he didnot kill Y's parents. However, Y is now takes his revenge on X. Now if the truth was not said to Y (X did not kill his parents) then Y will surely think that what he completed was right.

So, following the example stated previously, different people have different beliefs on things that are right and wrong. So there is no law that clearly has a definition of what they are.

This is just to state my opinion and make you think on this topic. I didnot mean to offend those who believe in ethics, especially god.

We learn "right" and "wrong" through our life experiences, parents, teachers and role models, assuming at least a normal IQ. Phoenix, if you're old enough and smart enough to use a PC keyboard, and are still puzzled about the differences between "right" and "wrong", maybe you haven't been paying attention.

The context of your post suggests that you are European.

There is no "right" or "wrong" only what benefits you (or the things that are important to you) the most.

The "golden rule" pretty well sums up ethics in a nut shell: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Or if you want to go to a bible for a definition of ethics then: "Love your neighbor as yourself" says the same thing. ;)

This takes a bigger person than your average man or woman, and don't you admire someone that treats you with this kind of respect? They are clearly way above everyone else. It's like the difference between humans and animals. Animals fight over who gets the food, but decent humans share with others that are weaker, sicker, or more feeble than themselves.

I agree with Avatar. There is no right or wrong. Its all pretty much based on the "advantage" spectrum.

There is no "right" or "wrong" only what benefits you (or the things that are important to you) the most. this is the definition of selfishness, but ethics has regard for others.

Example: A corporate executive cooks the books so he can get the greatest advantage out of his stock options. Money is the thing most important to him, and he wants the greatest advantage.

As an investor on the short end of this, would you say this is ethical?

Depends on the ethics and the value system applied.

The crooked executive example is no ethics at all in my opinion. The ones from Enron went to jail for doing this.

Basically the argument concerns situation ethics. If I'm getting the advantage, then it's ethical, but if someone else does the same thing to their advantage, then it is unethical -- this is a really self-centered view of the universe, and criminal mentalities think this way: The majority rules, I am the majority.

There is no universal right or wrong, but I'd disagree with the purely selfish motivation. Altruistic traits would be perpetuated by those with selfish traits, so that a balance is achieved.
I didnot mean to offend those who believe in ethics, especially god.I doubt god is offended :D

was it right for the chimpanzee to fling poo at me?
The christian answer: yes that was a very bad monkey and if he doesnt say he was sorry and repent his sins he will go to hell along with the monkey that was giving himself pleasure.

Woody:
It's the ethics that are enclosed in the criminal law, nothing more.
There is no 'one above all' value system.
Because most think that some value system is originally "wrong" it doesn't make it a "no value system", it just isn't the value system accepted by most.
And what is ethics if not the principle of following your value system?
At least that is how I understand it.

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

Avatar,

What about people with no conscience at all -- they feel justified doing just about anything wrong. There are people like that in the world. Where do you draw the line with the philosophy that says: if it feels good then do it? Doesn't a rapist or serial killer have needs that must be met to their greatest advantage without regard for others? :bugeye:

... Right and wrong and socially defined codes of conduct. The values that a person picks up or that a society imparts on a person is called "morality." The system that designs moral codes is called ethics. Religions typically bond moral codes to notions of the very nature of the universe. The basic advantage of this is that moral codes are not seen therefore to be optional or arbitrary.

If you're truely objective, there is no right or wrong. I say this in the absolute. You can rape babies and that's merely a violation of social and biological norms. What you do might well be bad for the child, the society, and perhaps humanity at large... but that only makes what you're doing wrong within those spheres. The stars don't care.

Therefore, why develop ethics at all? Why impose universial moral codes on the people of a given society? Because societies cannot exist without morals guiding the people and the leaders having a good grasp of ethics. A society without a functioning moral code is not a stable society and a society that is not guided by ethics is lost.

"if it feels good then do it" --
I think it depends if the person realizes the consequences of its' actions, i.e., if I kill a person because I feel like killing a person at that moment without thinking, then there is no value system, but if I kill a person because I think he's an enemy of the state, then there is a value system involved. (interests of the state are superior to the interests of that person's rights to stay alive.)

if I kill a person because I feel like killing a person at that moment without thinking, then there is no value system

Most serial killers carefully prepare for their murders with a well thought out plan, and some like having sex with the dead corpse -- this is their prize for winning the game. Is "winning" a value?

If serial kill because of killing then I think no.
If serial kill because the persons are jews, then yes.
Because winning(=killing) is just a consequence of the killing process then I think that there is no value system. The death of the person is not valued against anything, but the death of the person.
If a death of a jew is valued (for example) against some injustice done before, then it's a value system (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth).

If a death of a jew is valued (for example) against some injustice done before, then it's a value system (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth).

Avatar, you lost me there. This sounds like a prejudiced value system.

Example: I lost my job to a jew, therefore I will kill some other jew to even the score.

Is that what you mean?

All value systems have a bias and any system that tries to get rid of all bias is more likely to just destroy the value system to begin with.

Woody:
No. That was if you connect your injustice with all the jews.
If the connection is illogical and laughable, then it's a mental association problem and not a value system questioning issue.

If a death of a jew is valued (for example) against some injustice done before, then it's a value system (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth).

Avatar, you still lost me.

I'm reading this and trying to compare the death of a jew to some injustice done by somebody else.

To me the golden rule is a whole lot easier to remember, and it works great: If I treat a customer the way I would treat myself,then my customer is one happy camper! He/she sends me 5 more customers, and they do likewise. I give in order to receive, and it's a win-win situation for everyone. :D

That is one particular value system you are talking about, but not a value system above all others, it's just a principle like any other.

Woody,

The "golden rule" pretty well sums up ethics in a nut shell: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Well no that is not a good rule. It promotes unsolicited actions that others might not appreciate. It goes to the problem of what is considerd good for one person may not be good for another. The rule is seen as good for Christians but then that is simple Christian arrogance.

Lord Pheonix,

The definitions of good and bad often appear to depend on individual value systems and creating a universal definition that all would accept is problematic, however, I think one does exist. Whether everyone can understand the implications and issues is another matter.

Ultimately bad things detract from life, survival, and happiness while good things promote life, survival and happiness. In a religious setting such morality is defined as a set of rules to be followed so that the participant will allegedly achieve ultimate survival and happiness for eternity and if disobeyed will be punished by eternal pain or non-existence.

In a rational setting and usually secular, good is anything that promotes long life, health and happiness. These things are often enhanced by companionship, loving others which usually results in returned love, and mutual cooperation which often results in greater achievement than possible thought individual actions alone. It is not difficult to see that in most cases selfish actions do not result in optimum survival and happiness.

Also, I do not believe that true altruism exists. Every individual is always looking for happiness although sometimes people enjoy being miserable. So even though a supposed charitable action, at some cost to the donor, may appear altruistic such an action usually makes the donor happier and hence nullifies the apparent altruistic classification.

Hope that helps
Cris

The "golden rule" pretty well sums up ethics in a nut shell: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Different people may want different things done unto them. Some guys wouldn't mind being slapped in the ass by a hot girl (or guy, if so orientated). In fact, quite a few would welcome that. But that doesn't mean those guys can turn around and go slapping 'em in the ass.

In addition, the rule can be reversed. Something I'd always liked to do in my early elementary school years. "Well they did it to me, so that means I can do it to them, kuz they're treating me like they want me to treat them!", I'd say.

No, I think I have a better guideline for what's ethical and what isn't: If it harm none, do as thou wilt.

Cris,

Well no that (the golden rule) is not a good rule.

You're odviously not a salesman. What is wrong with putting yourself in the other man's shoes? This communication skill is called "savvy." It works.

The golden rule is a secularized version of "Loving your neighbor as yourself". The golden rule assumes you are a decent person to start with, and it odviously does not apply to a sado-masochist.

If a person can only think in terms of "self" they should not get married. Is anyone on this forum married besides me?

Say you have a plant on your window sill. In order for it to thrive, it needs to be in the right place for its nature--ie., it might need lots of light, or may prefer a bit more shade, or both. and for sure it needs watering. too much and you could rot the roots, too little--like with an Azalea--and the roots dry out and it will die. ALL plnats will die out if you don't water them though of course

it also will love you feed it regularly.
so that is good isn't it?
oh yeah, and also having a really nice attitude towards it--for it is a living organism--is also good too.

same with a pet. same with a child. say your child's being bullied in school. do you agree with it? if not what action do you take? how much do your love your child?

i personally would take her out of the school and find other means of educating him. but that takes guts. it means defying the very same system that DEMANDs you child be indoctrinated in that system. so, are you being 'good' cow towing TO that system? or is that wrong?

Cris,



You're odviously not a salesman. What is wrong with putting yourself in the other man's shoes? This communication skill is called "savvy." It works.

You do not know what my preferences are. For example you're a jazz player and you play by my restaurant table in all your best wishes, I hate jazz, I'm alergic to it and I get seizures from it. It would be torture for me and if I follow your rule I would return torture to you by stabbing my fork in your ass (if I'm annoyed enough).

What defines right or wrong? How are actions classified as either being right or wrong?


These are subjective words and there are some definition options available.

Right - Actions interpreted as 'correct' when applied against personal
behavioral preferences (these preferences change constantly and
are influenced by any number of factors).

Wrong - Actions interpreted as 'incorrect' when applied against personal
behavioral preferences (these preferences change constantly and
are influenced by any number of factors).

Right - Achieving an expected result through action.

Wrong - Achieving an unexpected result through action.

Avatar,

You do not know what my preferences are. For example you're a jazz player and you play by my restaurant table in all your best wishes, I hate jazz, I'm alergic to it and I get seizures from it. It would be torture for me and if I follow your rule I would return torture to you by stabbing my fork in your ass (if I'm annoyed enough).

You keep thinking in terms of "self." In this example, wouldn't you like me to ask before I start blasting away? If I were you, I certainly would, any other reasonable and thoughtful person would. Only a selfish person assumes everyone is just like them, and this is presumptuous, hence rude.

The golden rule says to treat others as you would have them treat you, it doesn't say to assume everyone is just like you and then act -- would you like someone else to treat you that way? (I am applying the golden rule - hint hint)

No set of values is universal. Every individual has a different set no matter what religion they follow or how they were raised. Society places a set of rules over individuals with consequences if they are broken. Depending on where you live, you must adapt to these rules even if against your values or what you consider right or wrong simply because of the consequences.

For example, where I live, we do not eat human beings. We consider that "wrong." In some other cultures, maybe even presently, humans eat others human beings. To them, that is part of their way of living and is "right." We cannot judge what is right or wrong for others. The best we can do is be true to ourselves while following the laws of the society in which we live. In most cases, these protect ourselves as well as others.

alright DIESAL....forget cannabilism for a moment. that, as far as i am aware is quite rare(?)...take female circumcision, which is really female mutilation. what do you fee about THAt being right?

i have read some myths for some countries that do it to baies, young girls and women. the myths--written by men of fukin course!--justify it through pretending to be holy (same as our patriarchal myths pretend)

so that gives it the 'right' seal of apporval right?

now it is alright saying that that is right for them. but Is it right? i say it most definately aint. mutilating another person so they can never experience the fullest natrual means of sensual arousal in sex is NOT RIGHT! whether it is here, there, or in Timbuktoo!

You missed the entire point of what I have written. There are lots of things that happen in the world that you or I may not think are right. That does not mean that this a full consensus and falls into the "wrong" category. To declare what others do as wrong just because they differ from your views is giving yourself a "god" status. We can honestly only judge our own actions as they coincide or conflict with our own values. Again, we follow set rules in our society so that we may be protected from others values and actions that can be harmful to us. These women are being harmed and it is "wrong" to me, I just wish there was laws to protect them. If you do something that you believe is wrong, then that is "wrong"

Ithopal,

The first (golden rule) is an utterly unsophisticated and ignorant concept.

You've odviously never tried it. The wisest people I know have used it, and they became leaders. Ithopal, are you leading anyone (please don't take this wrong just be honest with yourself)?

If you don't use the golden rule, then forget marriage, because it won't work for you.

This rule is utterly simplistic. Presumption that you actually know what is good to do unto others is often just false; an unwanted pathological ancient mindset of taught to you biblical behavior.

I'll repeat since it didn't register the first time:

The golden rule says to treat others as you would have them treat you, it doesn't say to assume everyone is just like you and then act -- would you like someone else to treat you that way? (I am applying the golden rule - **hint **hint)

The golden rule is an elementary social skill that people learn as they grow up, regardless of the bible. Everybody starts out as a self-centered child, but they learn social skills. If they want to get along in this world, they must consider the thoughts and feelings of others. Some people grow up and they remain self-centered, and miss out on life. It's a lonely world when all you ever think about is yourself. I've been there and done that, so I don't speak out of ignorance.

Geez, don't you ever give your ladyfriend some flowers or something?

You missed the entire point of what I have written.

d__I actually have understood you very clearly!

There are lots of things that happen in the world that you or I may not think are right. That does not mean that this a full consensus and falls into the "wrong" category.

d__we are talking about mutilation of human being without their consent, or as directed by sexist myths. can you not SEe that that is wrong? i dont CARe they think it is 'right' and i am not coming on as 'God'. i am seeing that it is wrong.

To declare what others do as wrong just because they differ from your views is giving yourself a "god" status. We can honestly only judge our own actions as they coincide or conflict with our own values. Again, we follow set rules in our society so that we may be protected from others values and actions that can be harmful to us.

d_- i could imagin with your attitude that you would not protest people being incarcerated for no reason as is the case for many so-called terrorists. That is wrong too.

These women are being harmed and it is "wrong" to me, I just wish there was laws to protect them. If you do something that you believe is wrong, then that is "wrong"

well, first one has to KNOW what is right and what is wrong. a good saying is 'if it harm none do what you will'...if you see something you FEEL is wrong then speak out. dont throw fuel on it claiming that their wrong is 'right' for them

You keep thinking in terms of "self."

Woody, I am born and die alone, I don't care about others, they have their own lives. My own well being and enjoyment of life is my top priority.

Avatar said,

Woody, I am born and die alone, I don't care about others, they have their own lives. My own well being and enjoyment of life is my top priority.

You dont' have anyone else in your life that you care about and vice versa? Wow, that must be awfully depressing. :(

Duendy,
This discussion is not meant to be typing all of the things that you think are wrong. I was a discussion on the very concept of right and wrong. Although I am sure it would be fascinating to hear about every problem you see in the world, it does not follow the discussion and would not be in the religious forum anyways. I was speaking in a broader sense of the ideas. You simply prove my point by trying to force your views and values on myself and others here. You have to be clear headed when you have discussions instead of "flying off the handle." Debating and arguing are commonly seen as different. Let try debating the subject.

There is no such thing as right and wrong.

This is just the way the brain perceives certain things.

Outside of the brain, there is no right and wrong.


Does that mean God has a brain? Or is He just arbitrary? Hmm

Southstar,

Did anyone come to your birthday party? May I be the first one here to say happy birthday, may you have many more :D

Duendy,
This discussion is not meant to be typing all of the things that you think are wrong. I was a discussion on the very concept of right and wrong. Although I am sure it would be fascinating to hear about every problem you see in the world, it does not follow the discussion and would not be in the religious forum anyways. I was speaking in a broader sense of the ideas. You simply prove my point by trying to force your views and values on myself and others here. You have to be clear headed when you have discussions instead of "flying off the handle." Debating and arguing are commonly seen as different. Let try debating the subject.

d___errr wait a minuet. is this a FIRST? am i being patronized by a TWELVE year old?!

forgive me if i'mm wrong but were you not 12 yesterday?....
anyway as i await your reply. look sonny jim 12 or 69, do not patronize me., and condescendingly tellme how to debate or what to say and think. OK?

if you would just listen and absorb, you may learn. i am not here to intellectualize and wallow in raltivism. i am say that there Is a right and wrong about fundamental things like himan rights and freedoms. got it? i am not on about it is wrong to eat syshi and right to eat fish and chips, etc. we, or i am talking about something deeper than that. but i can see i am not getting far with you kid

Duendy, I can see that even trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. You do not seem rational in the least. Even through your typing you appear a raving lunatic. Southstar followed what I was saying best by writing that there is no "right" or "wrong" besides what is in the human mind. Each person perceives things differently. That is why this is in the religious forum. It brings about the question, how can your actions be judged as right or wrong when there can never be a pure consensus?
I will pick Christianity for the sake of an example. How can a person know what God thinks is right and wrong? Can everything that is right or wrong be written in a bible? What if a manuscript went missing that said "If you drink anything but water or wine you will go to hell because this is wrong." It could be possible that this "god" believes this is wrong but you have never been taught it. It is impossible for a god or human beings to judge others on their own values and views on what is right or wrong.

Ithopal says,

And ladyfriend (wife) buys her own flowers every day - because she loves them. I buy the big stuff.

Why don't you buy her what she loves? I'm sure she would take it very well. The little things in life do count. Some of the best things in life are free, and can not be bought. :D

Woody,

You're odviously not a salesman. What is wrong with putting yourself in the other man's shoes? This communication skill is called "savvy." It works.

The golden rule is a secularized version of "Loving your neighbor as yourself". The golden rule assumes you are a decent person to start with, and it odviously does not apply to a sado-masochist.

The problem is that it assumes that your values are the best and that you are free to impose them on others. This is not a good version of the Golden Rule. This rule has some 50 variations, here is short list http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/GoldnRul.htm

Note that most emphasize NOT doing something.

For a long time my signature here was -

Everyone should be free to do as they wish providing such actions do not restrict the freedom of others.

There are variations on the wording. The Wican Rede has essentially been listed in this thread already which gives a similar theme - An harm none do what thou will.

Do you see the imortant difference?

Cris,

The problem is that it assumes that your values are the best and that you are free to impose them on others.

I haver never had a complaint from someone about me being "TOO NICE." -- Except when they were some cranky old grouch that nobody could please, that is to say that nobody was good enough for them.

I let people cut in front of me in traffic. If somebody wants to be first in line , I let them, and I smile and wish them well. Am I imposing my will, is this overbearing of me? Would you go into a fit if I was polite to you, and smiled? (of course not)

When someone wants to pass me in a car I slow down so they won't have to speed to get by, Do you know anyone else that does this? -- I don't. One time I talked with someone that I allowed to pass safely, he remembered me and my vehicle and he said thanks. I told him, I was just being reasonable, because if he wrecked, I would wreck too. Everybody else says, "By golly I'll show that bastard for wanting to pass me and they hit the accelerator!" I say go ahead and pass, then we will both live happily another day.

The golden rule works for me. How has your experience been different?

itopal,

You don't pay attention well; nor or you an instructor either.

What did I miss? You have 2 children -- great, you have been married 20 years - excellent. You don't buy a little knick Knack for the wife -- well don't ask me, ask her. :D

Reread what I posted to Cris,

Do you know anyone besides me that allows people to pass safely and legally on the highway instead of getting all self-centerred about it -- speeding up, scowling, posturing, etc. or just getting generally annoyed?

Ithopal,

What is wrong with being considerate of someone else and their differences? Is it something you just don't want to do? Being married, surely you must deal with differences. Selfishness doesn't make a marriage work, there has to be some give and take unless one of you is a slave.

Could you please (see I'm being considerate here **hint **hint) give me a specific example where it was a bad idea for someone to be considerate of you? That is what the golden rule is about.

It looks to me like you are being overly simplistic here with broad sweeping generalizations -- this "everyone's different" argument sounds like a red herring. Of course everyone's different. Wouldn't a considerate person consider those differences? The world is not a perfect place so if someone does make a well intentioned mistake, shouldn't the recipient be considerate enough to let them know in a kind way.

Do you prefer rudeness instead?

You let people pass - me too - so what. You are one of very very few. I might encounter one person in a couple of years that slows down and lets me pass. My wife has had the same experience. Most everyone speeds up while they are being passed, and I honestly think there are multiple reasons, most having to do with a lack of intelligence and a road rage red-neck mentality.

Woody,

The issue isn’t about showing basic considerations and kindness it is about imposing ones values on others, i.e. the positively “DOING to OTHERS,” part. The golden rule you are quoting is used by Christians especially as a way to justify their evangelism. They believe, in their arrogance, that everyone needs to be saved and hence they must seek out those that do not believe and convert them. They believe this because at one time they were “lost in the wilderness and now they have found the lord”, etc. They were glad that someone converted them so now they must DO the same to OTHERS – i.e. exercise “their” Golden Rule.

But the issue goes much further when they attempt to help others by trying to change them to their value system; this promotes homophobia, various forms of censorship, and other lifestyle ideologies, e.g. so-called family-values.

This is a not a new observation and why there are so many versions of the golden rule that specifically are not intrusive or imposing. Live and let live is another simple version – i.e. let people do their own thing while you do yours – just don’t get in each others way.

But your kindness can also backfire – a story I heard many years ago – a driver in heavy traffic out of kindness allowed another driver to enter from an intersection. This made the new driver feel so good that at the next intersection he also allowed someone to join the traffic. This kindness was transferred to another 20 intersections. The original driver is now furious that 20+ more cars were delaying his progress because of his kindness – he decides not to do that again. 

The incidents and actions you are describing sound to me like simple civilized common courtesy that most people follow, at least that is my experience here where I live in Silicon Valley.

Cris

OK Cris,

I see you are from the US like me, and I can share an example you might relate to. Hold the golden rule as a thought and consider this:

I worked for a staid electric utility for many years. We had a group of very well paid consultants train our company of 18,000 employees to help us change the corporate culture, which really stunk. Everyone was looking after their own turf and the company was going down. The training was called Foundations Training. I think the consultants were from the west coast (not sure though).

The instructors said we as employees needed to look past our own personal needs and look at the needs of the company we worked for. Everyone should be considered a customer. We needed win-win solutions rather than I win and you lose solutions. Consider your turf competitor to be your customer.

After several days of training in all the nuances of "the customer comes first" philosophy, I had one of my classmates look over at me and say, "Wow, our company is paying these guys a fortune to teach us the golden rule!" I agreed with him, somebody plagiarized the golden rule to make a buck.

In the end the company culture did not change, the turf wars continued, and the company lost more than a billion dollars in one year. A lot of people were laid off including me, and the cuts have continued since I left. There was some dishonesty in the book-keeping, and the CEO resigned. This same company was involved in the California power market manipulation probe, and paid hundreds of millions in reparations to the California customers that were ripped off.

This thread started about ethics and I come right back to the subject. Our country, the USA, has a lot of greedy self-serving, overpaid executives, that are only looking out for themselves. They are paid far more than their counterparts in the rest of the world, and they decide their own pay and perks through their puppet boards of directors. It is not a free market system that determines their wages -- believe me. They want it ALL.

And I say, fine let them have it all. I will be happy to live in an RV and play my guitar. If they don't want me to have a job -- fine, I'll vote for whoever helps me pay the bills, and guess who will be paying the bills -- the wealthy since they have all the money. So they can just support all of us they don't want to employ, and I'll be glad to sit at home with my family while they leave theirs and work for money they don't need and didn't deserve to start with. :cool:

Well no that is not a good rule. It promotes unsolicited actions that others might not appreciate. It goes to the problem of what is considerd good for one person may not be good for another.

I forget which forum it was, but someone mentioned how the Golden Rule should be. Basically the same words but with "not" in it as if:

"Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."

That way you don't do anything unwillingly to a person, even if you may feel it's a good act you're doing since as you say, what's good for one isn't good for another.

When it comes to morals, I'm a relativist, so there’s no real right or wrong. The only real ethical law I feel is the universal one is the Golden Rule, with that slight tweak as mentioned above (if I wrote the tweaked version correctly).

- N

Exciting to know, these many replies have popped up. Thanks guys for your consideration and appreciation.

Lord Phoenix,

You are welcome, chap. I hope it changes the world.

Lord Phoenix,
You are responsible for being the unqualified author of an act or event.

If you conduct did not hurt anybody, was stupid and silly, then it is moral, as a bottom line.
If your conduct benefitted someone your conduct is also moral on a higher level.
Geistkiesel

Duendy, I can see that even trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. You do not seem rational in the least. Even through your typing you appear a raving lunatic.

d__hahahah

Southstar followed what I was saying best by writing that there is no "right" or "wrong" besides what is in the human mind.



d__maybe he's your mentor then kiddo



Each person perceives things differently. That is why this is in the religious forum. It brings about the question, how can your actions be judged mas right or wrong when there can never be a pure consensus?

d__i've tried to explain, but you are obviously too 'rational' for me

I will pick Christianity for the sake of an example. How can a person know what God thinks is right and wrong? Can everything that is right or wrong be written in a bible? What if a manuscript went missing that said "If you drink anything but water or wine you will go to hell because this is wrong." It could be possible that this "god" believes this is wrong but you have never been taught it. It is impossible for a god or human beings to judge others on their own values and views on what is right or wrong.

and you think I am irrational?.....it's YOU who are wrong cutyface