What does 'wrong' mean?

In terms of ethical 'right' and 'wrong', how are these terms defined?

Or more importantly what do they really mean?

I feel that the terms are opposites (obviously) but rest on the concept of 'wrongness'.

That is to say, 'right' really means nothing more than 'not wrong' or 'least wrong' and it is 'wrongness' that holds the real meaning.

Not being religious in the traditional sense, I do not believe that there are 'set in stone' rules of right/wrong that can be discovered analytically or through physical science. I think 'wrong' is (and only is) applied to things that the consensus disagree with - or are emotionally assaulted with. This is a very drawn out way of saying “It’s all subjective”. The functional point is, however, that a terrible deed that would normally be considered ‘wrong’ is suddenly made ‘right’ if no one knows about it – because ‘wrong’ is only in the mind.

In a made-up world with two uncooperative tribal villages, most people would consider one totally massacring the other a ‘wrong’ thing. However, if one was to close their eyes and do it – do it and not think about it – then they’d get the benefits (more resources in this example) without feeling the pain of compassion or guilt later on. What was a very ‘wrong’ thing has magically transformed into the ‘right’ thing to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its completely subjective while at the same time being bound to our physiological make-up. right and wrong differ from culture to culture, but it generally tends to keep rules like 'killing is wrong' or 'no slavery'. this is because humans are naturally empathetic, due to thousands of years of evolution which have forced us to become very social animals. and so we subconsciously value the life and support of other people around us. but there are those who are less in tune with these values--this is because of the increasingly wide variety of genes in the gene pool--a product of society's ability to retain genes that are not neccessarily beneficial. we help everyone survive and so we have a greater variety of people.

wrong and right are subjective and circumstantial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're emotional responses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cool.

But are they incompatible with "yay boo" ? I vaguely remember reading a list of theories regarding ethics somewhere. These included moral relativism, the "programmed machine" view, and evolutionary psychology. There were others I can't remember off the top of my head, but I know that at the time I thought they mostly complemented one another. I agreed with all of them, except for the religious POV.

 

as roy stated, highly circumstantial. most wrongs can be made into a right. we're taught as children that murder is wrong, but if murder is necessary for survival, it's no longer wrong. when a man charges at you in order to kill you, you might just charge back and kill him. no reason to feel guilt or shame. another example...cannibalism is "wrong", but the sporty kids trapped in the Andes made their decision based on survival.

ethically i'd presume that right is to do no harm and wrong is to cause harm, whether it be to others or yourself. but everyone's view on what is right or wrong differs. abortion. war. segregation. cloning. animal testing. i could come up with a scenario where each of these things could be right and another scenario where each of these things could be wrong.

to me, wrong is a bad word. kind of like can't. i wish we could vote it out of the dictionary. but if there were no wrong, again, we'd have difficulty defining right. sadly, human beings have an affinity for attempting to make all things black and white...everything should fit either here or there. but realistically, that is not how it works.

 

Hi James,

But what is disapproval? What does it mean to disapprove of something? Also, how do you know that you disapprove of something? My answer to that would be to say that disapproval is something you "feel", and that's what I meant when I said right and wrong were emotional responses.

I'd make a distinction between the people's views and actions, if that's what you mean. As you've presented them, none of these three theories stike me as saying anything about the nature of ethical views themselves. They're little more than the trivial observation that people tend not to keep quiet about their opinions. And they're probably all false if they assert they're applicable to everyone (particularly intersubjectivism and emotivism). People often do state that their view is a majority opinion in order to strengthen their position, but not always. Some people also form protest groups, but they're a (very vocal) minority.

Another interpretation of your presentation of intersubjectivism is that people tend to assimilate the ethical views of society. I'd take this as an explanation for how people get at least some of their opinions: outside influence. Clearly different societies, both historical and contemporary, show different trends.

This would be a corollary of subjectivism. I don't see why it would be a problem for the theory itself, though (unless you can show that it is clearly false). Another result would be that ethical debates could go on in circles, with no-one ever agreeing on anything. This is something I see a lot of concerning issues where there isn't an overwhelming majority opinion.

It's the objective viewpoint I see a lot of problems with. What determines right and wrong? Suppose there was some "absolute" list of morals somewhere. What could make it logically impossible to argue with? A God? What's compelling you to agree with any God? I don't think "fear of God's wrath" makes for a very convincing logical argument. I don't know about you, but I really don't see how the objective view makes any sense.

 

Relativisim basically allows you to do anything you want, including condemning others. It just means that you ultimately have nothing to back up your assertions or actions. If you want things your way, and you fail to convince others that your way is "right," you'll have to use force. As far as intersubjectivism goes, it just helps if a lot of people are on your side.

No. It means there's no basis for condemning people for making judgements either. Moral relativism basically means that there are no absolute rules (other than the laws of physics). It turns out that the majority of people like to enforce their views on others, and relativism itself does not mean it is impossible to change someone else's mind through non violent discussion.

Example: Most people think cannibalism is wrong, but most have nothing against meat-eating. "Cannibalism is wrong" does not imply "eating meat is wrong," but you can still give someone a hard time by accusing them of inconsistency or hypocrisy. You'd be attacking their public image, as if they were tailoring their morals to suit themselves rather than society, or even that 'inconsist' implies 'unpredictable' and possibly 'dangerous' (I think I tried using this on Quagmire in the death penalty thread at one point).

As a subjectivist, all I can say is that the holocaust disgusts me. Relativism means that you'll never be able to logically support any judgement, not that judgements cannot exist. I believe murder is wrong. This is a judgement, and not one I decided to make. It is something I cannot help feeling any more than I can help feeling angry if someone punches me in the face.

Like? And what would make them absolute? You're describing something I've dismissed as being impossible rather than just in favour of some alternative.

Agreed.

 

Hi James,

It looks like we're approaching this from two different angles. Basically, you are trying to argue how people and society "should" behave (if you indeed take the objective view - I don't think you've expressed any of your own opinions so far). This assumes that there is a preferred set of rules or standards that everyone "should" abide by.

The important issue here is what is meant by "preferred" or "should." I've never seen any attempt at a definition for the absolute view, as if this "absolute" set of standards is, somehow, self-evident. That is, it does not require any premises, manages to reach some conclusions anyway, and these conclusions are impossible to disagree with based on logic. Is that your view?

I'm not saying you can't come up with a practical definition of "preferred." A good one would be to define the ethical code that would maximize happiness in society (assuming everyone adhered to it). Alternatively, you might want to focus on maximizing everyone's sense of security. I would not, however, classify this as objectivism, as you can still legitimately ask what makes these preferred morals anything more than guidelines. It is also dependent on what happens to make people feel happy or secure (imagine what laws might look like if people enjoyed being assaulted, robbed, or murdered

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

The approach I've been taking has been to model the way people do behave, and I think ethics plays a key role in explaining how people manage to successfully live in a community. This requires at least three things:

#1: Trivially, that people actually have a sense of ethics.
#2: The ethical views people hold must affect their behaviour in such a way that living in a community is beneficial for the average member.
#3: The majority of people must agree on the "important" issues.

I see ethics as a kind of individual emotional response to the actions of others. There are a few things that distinguish ethics from conventional emotions, including that the feeling can be in response to a situation you have no direct involvement in, people typically insisting that others agree with them and/or trying to enforce their views, and a desire to "punish" anyone that breaches your ethical code.

The optimum is probably close to what we have: most people's ethics basically boil down to "treat others the way you'd have others treat you." Athough this rule has its own failings, it makes a lot of sense. Someone that abides by this rule is unlikely to make a nuisance of themself, and will probably be benificial to live with. The desire to "punish" those that misbehave would then act as a safeguard against people taking advantage of society's ethics without returning the favour.

Then comes the issue of how we got the ethics we have. I'd simply say through evolution. Societies with ethical individuals who feel compelled to help one another, but who make sure their generosity is not abused will do better overall, and ethical individuals in such a society will be more successful than the ones that lack morals.

How's that? Hope it wasn't too daunting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Following a link by Rosnet to an old thread, it seems you've already expressed this view (more efficiently too):
[POST=848104]

[/POST]
So why were we arguing in the first place?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey, you're back!

Well, we seemed to be disagreeing about something (non-violently, of course). Since we basically agree, let the nit-picking begin!

I don't really have a problem with subjectivism. Moral relativism, at least my interpretation of it, seems close to the ultimate null-theory: it says nothing, except to deny the objective view, and it makes no predictions. On its own, it says nothing about what moral views people are likely to hold, the effects of these moral views on individuals and society, or the mechanism behind morality. The main reason for bringing it up is that almost everyone instinctively presupposes absolute ethics.

Not sure I agree with your wording here. What is inherently "wrong" with a double standard? People certainly do oppose them though. Presumably, an inconsistency is an indicator that someone is acting out of self-interest, and opposition to this is understandable in terms of self-preservation (again the "punishment" scheme - making sure you're not taken advantage of). I wouldn't leave it as: "inconsistencies and double standards *must* be eliminated."

Also, there may be cases where a double standard is in the best interests of society. The double standard against women, for instance. For millions of years, the male went out to 'work' and the female stayed at home and raised the children. Inconsistent or not, this arrangement worked, and worked well. It may or may not be the best scheme in our day and age, given the changes in our environment over the last few centuries, but it was the most practical for a very long time, and men and women evolved differently to suit their different roles.

I'd be interested in having a closer look at why it is that people might re-evaluate their moral views change their minds. I'm not sure how it happens.

Yes, but I'd distinguish between morals that have a significant impact on how we function as a society, and those that are less significant. We're likely to develop much stronger views on the former. Just picking at terminology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i would say that morality is completely subjective, but that its subjectivity is due to genetic heritage and the surrounding environment of the culture. i guess you could say that is a form of objectivity, but i'd say its both and that we really can't describe it in such a black and white manner.

from this perspective i can both see morality as subjective, and also see how it is subjective, therefore better enabling me to see if it productive for their culture. to understand what is really right and wrong for a certain culture, you have to understand their individuality and history--how they act and why. then you can relate their intents to the effects of their actions. because that's all morality is--intent.

and the fundamental ones we retain because they are necessary for survival of the majority. any group of people with power will fight for survival--what they call their right to live--and so over time we have reached a level where we all--for the most part--agree on each others' rights to live. there are still wars and those are because of misunderstandings and disagreements with each others' right to live. differences in morality and the conflict caused by it are only due to our misunderstanding of their intent and reason behind that intent. but i feel like i'd be preaching to the choir if i went any further.

 

A good definition of Moral Law can be this:

Act only on that principle which you can, without contradiction, will for all people.

SO to answer the question, "right" is an act that is right for all in that circumstance. "Wrong" is not.

 

I take a more basic personal view.
If I would not like a specific action taken against me then it would be wrong for me to take that action against someone else.
Example: I would not like my possesions stolen so I should not take something that belongs to someone else.

 

Disagree

Example: late abortion:

If the majority were to decide it's acceptable because they don't want another unwanted baby in their midst and they don't care about the unborn that they have no association with, does the fact the majority give this life no value and allow it's sufferring at death make late abortion 'right?' No..it remains wrong.

The fact the majority decide something is ok, doesn't make it ok.

Q: Why? Who decides what is right and wrong if not the majority?

A: Those with a more developed sense of conscience and empathetic ability. These individuals may form a very small minority.

In days of old the responsibility for deciding what was right and wrong did indeed fall to the responsibility of one person: Medicine man, trible chief, hermit in the woods, priest, ruler...whatever.

Religion dictated right and wrong for centuries, then politics started to take over.

We lost trust in religious leaders when modern science started proclaiming all the religious ideals were based on historical lies. We lost trust in politicians when the media advances made it possible for us to see how the political machine operates. We also lack the trust to put our moral needs in the hands of 'one', or maybe that 'ones' voice canot be heard anymore over the crowd. The tribes have become too big.

Who do we trust now to make these decisions?

Ourselves...which is great if as individuals we have a higher sense of values to begin with, if not then hence the problem and thus the reliance and inadequate dependancy on 'majority' opinion in these matters.

With majority rule dictating right and wrong, we note a loosening of moral values. This will likely continue unless we again learn to trust those with higher sense of conscience to guide those with lesser developed sense of same. Or we let savages who may make up the majority dictate right and wrong. Which would you rather?

James has said that humans have evolved to become more empathetic as time has gone by. My view is similar but more controversially I simply think some people are more evolved than others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!