2
   

What makes something "wrong"?

 
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 10:25 am
Why is a personal True Reality murder "wrong"?

What makes it "wrong"?

What gives society the so-called legitimate right/business to claim murder is wrong and that it has the right to judge and punish murderers?

The question is : Why is the individual responsible?

To the sane thinker, obviously the answer is that society HAS no basis, justification or business punishing anyone for murder. Why should anyone be responsible? The Truth dictates that no-one is responsible for their actions.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,695 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 11:05 am
@Seer Travis Truman,
Seer Travis Truman;69357 wrote:
Why is a personal True Reality murder "wrong"?

What makes it "wrong"?

What gives society the so-called legitimate right/business to claim murder is wrong and that it has the right to judge and punish murderers?

The question is : Why is the individual responsible?

To the sane thinker, obviously the answer is that society HAS no basis, justification or business punishing anyone for murder. Why should anyone be responsible? The Truth dictates that no-one is responsible for their actions.


Well you could start by looking up the definition of wrong and then asking yourself how this would apply to murder.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 10:13 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;69361 wrote:
Well you could start by looking up the definition of wrong and then asking yourself how this would apply to murder.



Another totally mindless answer from ff. "Look up the answer in the dictionary". I suppose all the philosophers and intellectuals who debate these things must have missed that one. Next up, ff solves the meaning of life - he found it in his dictionary.

wrong : "not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. ".

Wow. Circular reasoning at its best.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:50 am
@Seer Travis Truman,
Society determines what is right and wrong based on the prevailing morality which is based on human instinct and, more widely, traditions passed down for thousands of years. I'd like to believe most people have a conscience or a moral compass or whatever you'd like to call it. Do you mean to suggest it's simply a fear of repercussions that keeps you from murdering every person you want to?
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 10:48 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;69364 wrote:
Society determines what is right and wrong based on the prevailing morality


But the prevailing morality is based on what the particular society says it is, so that wont do. That is a circular justification.

Also, what is moral is based on whats right and wrong, and so on.

Quote:
which is based on human instinct

No moral theory is based on instinct, and anyone with natural instinct would know that the legal system is not "good" or "moral".

This is your personal theory, I take it? How can you make such a claim? What senses are involved? Would an alien be expected to be able to observe/understand moral theory based on human instinct? How can such a thing be objective? If My instinct said the opposite of yours, how would you hold Me to your standard?

Quote:
and, more widely, traditions passed down for thousands of years.

Appeals to tradition are illogical and ridiculous. You just beg the question again in a different form (postponement of the problem).

Quote:
I'd like to believe most people have a conscience or a moral compass or whatever you'd like to call it.

Most people cannot even recognise the Truth, despite Myself presenting it.

Quote:
Do you mean to suggest it's simply a fear of repercussions that keeps you from murdering every person you want to?

I do as My True Reality dictates, re-percussions or not.

Your answer, as it stands, is not sufficent in the least.
Most moral theories are based on :
1. Metaphysical
2. God "commanments"
3. Some kind of "deal"/"contract" system.

Here is another way to attack moral theories that society currently uses (This is really a test, to see how bright you are):

A. If a serial killer (lets call him Peter) is in court, and tells the judge "he did it", he is not mentally ill/impaired, and is not responsible, can his claim be proven wrong?

What if he were to argue that his brain was made up of atoms, and his brain controlled his memories, thoughts and actions. His brain is controlled by the laws of physics - and determinism. He therefore argues that he cannot control his actions, they are controlled by the laws of nature/physics.

If determinism is True, Peter cannot possibly be any more accountable than someone who is thrown over a balcony and lands on an old lady, killing her. The same laws of nature that made his body fall onto the lady, made Peter kill via the physical control of his brain, which in turn controls Peter. He ultimately had as much choice and the falling man.

It cannot be proven that determism is wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that Peter may well be 100% correct in that he is not able to control his actions and therefore not morally responsible.

How can Peter be morally responsible now?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 10:54 am
@Seer Travis Truman,
Quote:
No moral theory is based on instinct, and anyone with natural instinct would know that the legal system is not "good" or "moral".

This is your personal theory, I take it? How can you make such a claim? What senses are involved? Would an alien be expected to be able to observe/understand moral theory based on human instinct? How can such a thing be objective? If My instinct said the opposite of yours, how would you hold Me to your standard


Well, most people have some sort of conscience which is surely based on instinct. We're naturally inclined to preserve our own species which means we don't do things which have come to be seen as violating the rights of others. The Golden Rule is "do unto others what you would have done unto you." Anyone who is in a sane state of mind can surely see the logic behind this. If what you believe is right conflicts with what people in general (society) believe is right, then you are not completely sane. It's just the way it works. It's practical democracy, the majority is right and the rest are wrong. No amount of philosophical conjecturing will ever change that.

Quote:
Appeals to tradition are illogical and ridiculous. You just beg the question again in a different form (postponement of the problem).


They really aren't so illogical and ridiculous. Tradition is just the way we've made things work for thousands of years and the way they will continue to work if we keep those traditions. If society doesn't have a moral code based on respect for others, it will negatively impact everyone.

Quote:
Most people cannot even recognise the Truth, despite Myself presenting it.


That's a pretty self-important thing to say.

Quote:
I do as My True Reality dictates, re-percussions or not.

Your answer, as it stands, is not sufficent in the least.
Most moral theories are based on :
1. Metaphysical
2. God "commanments"
3. Some kind of "deal"/"contract" system.


That sounds like existentialism. If mainstream society's reality conflicts with yours, then, as I said, you're wrong for everyone but yourself and the small amount of people who see things according to your moral code. There can't be moral relativity in a society if it is to work efficiently.

Quote:
Here is another way to attack moral theories that society currently uses (This is really a test, to see how bright you are):


I'm not a fan of presumptous people trying to test my intelligence.

Quote:
A. If a serial killer (lets call him Peter) is in court, and tells the judge "he did it", he is not mentally ill/impaired, and is not responsible, can his claim be proven wrong?


Who is Peter claiming did? Himself? In any case, physical and circumstantial evidence is what proves a crime like murder.

Quote:
What if he were to argue that his brain was made up of atoms, and his brain controlled his memories, thoughts and actions. His brain is controlled by the laws of physics - and determinism. He therefore argues that he cannot control his actions, they are controlled by the laws of nature/physics.

If determinism is True, Peter cannot possibly be any more accountable than someone who is thrown over a balcony and lands on an old lady, killing her. The same laws of nature that made his body fall onto the lady, made Peter kill via the physical control of his brain, which in turn controls Peter. He ultimately had as much choice and the falling man.

It cannot be proven that determism is wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that Peter may well be 100% correct in that he is not able to control his actions and therefore not morally responsible.

How can Peter be morally responsible now?


If his brain is controlling him, it is also controlling his arguments that it is controlling him. So Peter's identity is his brain, which must be held responsible for what it has caused him to do. Peter cannot be acting as a separate identity blaming his brain for causing him to act, they are the same thing. Though determinism cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be proven right, which means that theories based on it cannot be acceptable in a court of law.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:11 pm
@Reagaknight,
First things first : You are a complete retard. I do not mean that as an insult. You need help.

Quote:
Well, most people have some sort of conscience which is surely based on instinct.

Wrong. How do you explain other cultures? Hmmm? Think, man. What is wrong to one culture is not to another. And they are HUMANS with INSTINCTS.

Quote:
We're naturally inclined to preserve our own species

Human being have lost this capability when they rejected the Truth.

Excuse Me, while I just flush My books on Global Warming, Wars, genocide, poolution, ozone layer, poisons, biological weapons development, atomic weapons down the toilet. They must all be ficticious. You have spoken otherwise.

Quote:
Which means we don't do things which have come to be seen as violating the rights of others.

But we do. Wrong again.

Quote:
The Golden Rule is "do unto others what you would have done unto you."

Try to think. You cant justify morality by the rules of morality L That is circular justification.

Quote:
Anyone who is in a sane state of mind can surely see the logic behind this.

You are insane or extremely dumb. There IS NO LOGIC TO YOUR CLAIMS. They are illogical.

A List of Fallacies In Logic

Look up circular reasoning, and appeal to history logical fallacyARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM . Then try thinking.

Quote:
If what you believe is right conflicts with what people in general (society) believe is right, then you are not completely sane.

Wrong. Society is not sane, and its definition of what is right is just capricous and arbitrary.

What about Muslims, who disagree? Or tribes? Or Sweden> Are thier differences tantamount to insanity? Idiot.

Quote:
It's just the way it works. It's practical democracy, the majority is right and the rest are wrong. No amount of philosophical conjecturing will ever change that.

I dont NEED to change it, YOU are wrong in the first place.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute Truth or Correctness to authority or to majority. This would be Appeal To Majority.

Q : WHen people thought the earth was flat, do you actually think they were right?

Quote:
They really aren't so illogical and ridiculous. Tradition is just the way we've made things work for thousands of years and the way they will continue to work if we keep those traditions. If society doesn't have a moral code based on respect for others, it will negatively impact everyone.

Oh.....The stupidity. Look, you inherently assume your argument is correct to justify it. Traditions NEVER made anything work.

Quote:
That's a pretty self-important thing to say.

Unlike you, I am important.

Quote:
That sounds like existentialism. If mainstream society's reality conflicts with yours, then, as I said, you're wrong for everyone but yourself and the small amount of people who see things according to your moral code. There can't be moral relativity in a society if it is to work efficiently.

Just because something suits societal leaders does not mean that it is right.

Quote:
I'm not a fan of presumptous people trying to test my intelligence.

Get a 55 IQ last time?

Quote:
Who is Peter claiming did? Himself? In any case, physical and circumstantial evidence is what proves a crime like murder.

In the example, Peter IS guilty, ther eis no question.

It is a matter of this : YOU CANNOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT FREE CHOICE.

Quote:
If his brain is controlling him, it is also controlling his arguments that it is controlling him.

No, his argument sfont control him. He says determinsm does, dummy.
Even so, his arguments are still determined by determism.

Quote:
So Peter's identity is his brain,

What???? That is just stupid.

Quote:
which must be held responsible for what it has caused him to do.

But his brain could not make any other choice. His brain is just as much under the forces of determisnm as he is.

Quote:
Peter cannot be acting as a separate identity blaming his brain for causing him to act, they are the same thing.

WHAT ??? It is NOTHING TO FO WITH HIS IDENTITY.

HE CANNOT CHOOSE. So : how can he be responsible ? Thats is why an accident does not make you morally responsible. Dont you understand?

Quote:
Though determinism cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be proven right, which means that theories based on it cannot be acceptable in a court of law.

Actually, you are wrong. But that is NOT THE POINT. You are just incompetant, completely so.

Look, this philisophical puzzle is UNSOLVABLE, YOU DILL. IT IS A FAMOUS RIDDLE. IT CANNOT BE ANSWERED. You cannot disprove his story. Therefore, you cannot prove he was ever morally culpable. You cant prove Peter wrong.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 03:18 am
@Seer Travis Truman,
Well, I'm obviously dealing with someone who's entire viewpoint has been shaped by a couple of lunatic fringe websites. I would respond to your points individually but I don't care to waste my time. Perhaps, though, you should read up on the more famous argumentum ad hominem, which you seem to rely quite heavily on, as well as maybe looking up the spelling of incompetent before you accuse others of being incompetent. I did recognize the philosophical riddle. You clever little boy. You say it can't be answered, but who said that? Isn't that the point of philosophy, sitting around trying to answer pointless questions and accomplishing nothing? Molesting some children, I suppose, if you're an ancient Greek philosopher. If we're going by determinism, then society has been shaped by the laws of nature and it's not going to change, and the court is invariably going to find Peter guilty because philosophical conjecturing is not a defense. The end. You've still not proven that determinism and more specifically your limited view of it is true and infallible, because you can't.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 08:39 am
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;69379 wrote:
You've still not proven that determinism and more specifically your limited view of it is true and infallible, because you can't.


I am not suggesting that determism is True. You might notice that Forbidden Truth does NOT refer to determinism.

Although it was not proven that it was True in the Peter example, you might recall that Peter has to be proven guilty (and proven morally culpabile) by the legal system

Surely Peter should be no more responsible than a woman who is thrown out of a window and lands on someone(casued them to die)? After all, he has no more control than she does.

You just cannot explain, that is all.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 06:24 pm
@Seer Travis Truman,
Seer Travis Truman;69357 wrote:
What makes something "wrong"?


Paying a prostitute for sex is wrong because you get arrested for it.

Paying the same woman to have sex with you on videocamera is not wrong because you don't get arrested for filming pornography.

Killing your neighbor is wrong because you will do time for it.

Killing iraqis is not wrong because you get a medal for it.

Having sex with a woman who is 18 years and 1 day old is not wrong because sex is natural.

Having sex with a woman that is 1 day short of 18 is extremely wrong because you will be doing a long time behind bars for it.

Smoking cigarettes is not wrong because you dont go to jail for it.

Smoking marijuana is wrong because you do go to jail for it.

----------------------------------------------

wrong is whatever is punished. we don't punish things because they are wrong. we make things wrong because they are punished.

YES. it makes absolutely NO SENSE.


Seer Travis Truman;69357 wrote:
society HAS no basis, justification or business punishing anyone


society may indeed have no business punishing anybody for anything. however Seer i can assure you that, even in the absence of society, murder would still be punished. i would like to discourage you from going around murdering people. i am telling you this as a friend.
dson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 06:35 pm
@Seer Travis Truman,
The only way to decide if something is wrong is what you think.

But then what makes something right?
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:49 am
@dson,
dson;70072 wrote:
The only way to decide if something is wrong is what you think.


And how will you know what to think ?

Wink
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 03:07 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69623 wrote:
Paying a prostitute for sex is wrong because you get arrested for it.

Paying the same woman to have sex with you on videocamera is not wrong because you don't get arrested for filming pornography.

Killing your neighbor is wrong because you will do time for it.

Killing iraqis is not wrong because you get a medal for it.

Having sex with a woman who is 18 years and 1 day old is not wrong because sex is natural.

Having sex with a woman that is 1 day short of 18 is extremely wrong because you will be doing a long time behind bars for it.

Smoking cigarettes is not wrong because you dont go to jail for it.

Smoking marijuana is wrong because you do go to jail for it.


Might doesn't make right.

Just because something is illegal, does not mean it's wrong.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 10:13 am
@Seer Travis Truman,
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 11:29 am
@Frank Apisa cv,
Frank Apisa;70379 wrote:
I suggest that society has a right to function as a society...and can institute laws to allow for that to occur.


i think that captures the way most people within the general public feel on the subject. since you formulated it in more or less certain terms we can now argue about it.

society has no history before man. it was created by man. assuming the man knew what he was creating ( and if we read the constitution we should come to the conclusion that it is a good assumption ) he would not have created an entity which would put it's own rights over that of man who created it.

therefore society has no INTRINSIC rights ( unlike man, who does ) but only those rights which man gives it. the rights of society then can NOT be justified by its need to exist or function. whether such "need" exists is to be determined by man, because the man, who created society, never authorized any rights to self-awareness let alone to self-preservation for society.

i would go even further and state the society CAN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF AWARENESS because that would constitute a conflict of interest with its primary goal of providing for man.
Frank Apisa cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 11:53 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70380 wrote:
i think that captures the way most people within the general public feel on the subject. since you formulated it in more or less certain terms we can now argue about it.

society has no history before man. it was created by man. assuming the man knew what he was creating ( and if we read the constitution we should come to the conclusion that it is a good assumption ) he would not have created an entity which would put it's own rights over that of man who created it.
Quote:
therefore society has no INTRINSIC rights ( unlike man, who does ) but only those rights which man gives it.


And who says men have rights?

Where does all this come from? Some god?

Quote:

the rights of society then can NOT be justified by its need to exist or function. whether such "need" exists is to be determined by man, because the man, who created society, never authorized any rights to self-awareness let alone to self-preservation for society.

i would go even further and state the society CAN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF AWARENESS because that would constitute a conflict of interest with its primary goal of providing for man.


If this is the "brutal argumentation" you mentioned in your post in my other thread...you surely must be trying for laughs, because this is corny...not brutal.

Anyway...before this "argumentation" goes any further, I am interested in your responses to my questions above.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
@Frank Apisa cv,
Frank Apisa;70384 wrote:


not me. look at the constitution and the bill of rights - it's all there. i didn't create our society and neither did you. it is not up to us to decide what the intention was when it is all well documented already.

Frank Apisa;70384 wrote:
although I am perfectly willing to acknowledge there are boorish, selfish, self-absorbed types who would not.


insults are not argumentation. although i know for the most part that's the only thing "progressives" like you are capable of. don't worry - i will reform you.

Frank Apisa;70384 wrote:
My guess is that type would be in the minority...which is why societies have evolved the way they have.


you guess correctly. an average person who is dumb as **** comes to all the same conclusions that you have come to.

Frank Apisa;70384 wrote:
And who says men have rights?

Where does all this come from? Some god?


not at all. it simply follows because man pre-dates society and forms it willingly.

start with a single man on a deserted island. he has every right you can think of except those that have to do with other people ( since there aren't any other people ). thus he certainly has the rights for example to FREEDOM OF THOUGHT as it involves no other person.

in our modern progressive slave society i am not sure if we still have that right. if we do then at least the people have allowed themselves to be intimidated into not exercising it.
Frank Apisa cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:49 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70385 wrote:
not me. look at the constitution and the bill of rights - it's all there. i didn't create our society and neither did you. it is not up to us to decide what the intention was when it is all well documented already.


So you are saying that because our Constitution says something...it has to be so for all of humanity???

C'mon.

Quote:
insults are not argumentation. although i know for the most part that's the only thing "progressives" like you are capable of. don't worry - i will reform you.
Quote:
you guess correctly. an average person who is dumb as **** comes to all the same conclusions that you have come to.
Quote:
not at all. it simply follows because man pre-dates society and forms it willingly.


And you are saying that man has no right to give up rights in the interest of forming a functioning society? Why is that?

Quote:
start with a single man on a deserted island. he has every right you can think of except those that have to do with other people ( since there aren't any other people ). thus he certainly has the rights for example to FREEDOM OF THOUGHT as it involves no other person.

in our modern progressive slave society i am not sure if we still have that right. if we do then at least the people have allowed themselves to be intimidated into not exercising it.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 01:40 pm
@Frank Apisa cv,
Frank Apisa;70386 wrote:
So you are saying that because our Constitution says something...it has to be so for all of humanity???


we're going to have to leave humanity out of this for now. before we can think in the abstract we should first be able to analyze concrete examples.


Frank Apisa;70386 wrote:
as for you “reforming” me…you have a better chance at raising Titanic.


good to see you admit to being completely myopic and a waste of time :thx:

Frank Apisa;70386 wrote:
And you are saying that man has no right to give up rights in the interest of forming a functioning society? Why is that?


well, according to the fathers the rights are inalienable. the man has the right to give them up but he has no ability to do so. the rights stay with him whether he likes it or not.

consider this story:

Prosecutors think motivational speaker asked killer to stab him to death - NYPOST.com

the guy asked to be killed. yet the person who obliged him is still going to prison. even though the man tried to give up his right to life it still stayed with him.

anyway Frank i have no time now ( and i do think you are just another personality of Jack Flash ).

i will excuse myself.
Frank Apisa cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 02:24 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70387 wrote:
we're going to have to leave humanity out of this for now. before we can think in the abstract we should first be able to analyze concrete examples.
Quote:
good to see you admit to being completely myopic and a waste of time :thx:
Quote:
well, according to the fathers the rights are inalienable.
Quote:
the man has the right to give them up but he has no ability to do so. the rights stay with him whether he likes it or not.
Quote:

consider this story:

Prosecutors think motivational speaker asked killer to stab him to death - NYPOST.com

the guy asked to be killed. yet the person who obliged him is still going to prison. even though the man tried to give up his right to life it still stayed with him.

anyway Frank i have no time now ( and i do think you are just another personality of Jack Flash ).

i will excuse myself.
Quote:
Frank i have no time now ( and i do think you are just another personality of Jack Flash ).

i will excuse myself.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What makes something "wrong"?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 03:13:24