Our sense of right and wrong

[At just flattened at!]

I believe that our human sense of what is "right" and "wrong" is nothing more than a human creation, totally derived from our feelings and largely influenced by the feelings of the majority. Do you agree?

 

So all that repulses us and would be considered "wrong", for example murder, is only wrong because we feel it should be not because it truly is "wrong". Likewise for feelings of what is "right."

[michel123456]

If you are under trial and you cannot recognize what is right from what is wrong, you will be considered irresponsible and conducted to the asylum. But maybe I am wrong on this.

[iNow]

The concepts are definitely social constructs, but we do seem to have genetic predispositions away from such behaviors.

[Phi for All]

We recognize that our strengths lie in our numbers, our communication and our cooperation. Some actions either support or are inimical to these strengths, and become fixed as "right" and "wrong". These may be learned responses but I don't think our "feelings" have as much to do with them as our intelligence. Killing other humans can be justified, but when it can't it's usually because it threatens to undermine the strengths we benefit from in our organized society. That's when it becomes murder instead of execution or defending ourselves.

[JustinW]

michael123456,

 

If you are under trial and you cannot recognize what is right from what is wrong, you will be considered irresponsible and conducted to the asylum. But maybe I am wrong on this.

By who's standards? Individual standards, which can differ drasticly, or the publics, which can also differ drasticly from an individuals? I think what the OP is getting at is that right and wrong is not set in stone. That it's only from which perspective you view a situation that determines your judgement.

 

 

iNow,

The concepts are definitely social constructs, but we do seem to have genetic predispositions away from such behaviors.

Can you give an example of genetic predispositions that contribute to a persons actions of right and wrong?

 

 

Phi,

We recognize that our strengths lie in our numbers, our communication and our cooperation. Some actions either support or are inimical to these strengths, and become fixed as "right" and "wrong". These may be learned responses but I don't think our "feelings" have as much to do with them as our intelligence. Killing other humans can be justified, but when it can't it's usually because it threatens to undermine the strengths we benefit from in our organized society. That's when it becomes murder instead of execution or defending ourselves.

But some others would feel differently about this. Let's say for instance someone might believe in "culling the herd", for lack of a better term, rather than calling it murder. Or some others might believe in geneticly manipulating the population with intelligence while killing off those who don't fit their criteria. Or I'm sure there may be many other examples of someone who doesn't believe that murder is wrong for their own reasons, so while what you say fits the realm of right and wrong, it seems that it only does from a public view.

[michel123456]

By who's standards? Individual standards, which can differ drasticly, or the publics, which can also differ drasticly from an individuals? I think what the OP is getting at is that right and wrong is not set in stone. That it's only from which perspective you view a situation that determines your judgement.

 

You are confusing right/wrong with legal/illegal (or commonly accepted/unaccepted)

Laws may vary from place to place and from time to time. In time of war you may be obliged to kill, it will not be considered murder, under certain conditions. But you must always be able to recognize right from wrong.

[iNow]

iNow,

Can you give an example of genetic predispositions that contribute to a persons actions of right and wrong?

Sure. Social modeling begins at infancy.

[JustinW]

michael123456,

 

You are confusing right/wrong with legal/illegal

Not that I was aware of. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with a persons perspective on what they consider right or wrong. By public I was referring to political correctness and how people differ in their opinions of what is right and wrong. What someone can consider wrong may not be interpreted that way by someone else. And what the public views as wrong may differ drasticly from an individuals perspective.

 

 

But you must always be able to recognize right from wrong.

And people do that differently. Right and wrong is not set in stone but rather a matter of justifiable reasoning. Which by one person can be a normal reasoning, while by another may seem totally irrational.

 

 

iNow,

 

Sure. Social modeling begins at infancy.

When you said genetics I was thinking you were talking about a set predispotion being ingrained in your genetic makeup. Learning right from wrong is just a by-product of our social skills and a consequence of interaction and observation. It's not like we are born with a specific attribute towards such thinking. Edited April 11, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

When you said genetics I was thinking you were talking about a set predispotion being ingrained in your genetic makeup.

I was. What do you think predisposes us to learn from our parents and tribal elders and adhere to social norms if not our genetics?

 

Add to that our innate sense of empathy for other living things (which itself only fails when there are genetic issues resulting in mental health deficiencies), and I find the issue fairly cut and dry.

[JustinW]

iNow,

What do you think predisposes us to learn from our parents and tribal elders and adhere to social norms if not our genetics?

Is it the same thing that some learn to rebel against parents, tribal elders, social norms, etc...? Learning is the predisposition. You will learn no matter what. Your genetics have no bearing on whether you will believe a certain situation is wrong or right. That has more to do with your social interaction than a genetic predisposition to learning. Sure the predisposition is the cause, but like I said before, your opinion of right and wrong is merely a by-product of that predisposition.

 

 

Add to that our innate sense of empathy for other living things

Hmmm, I haven't seen too many toddlers express empathy for something, unless it was a facial expression or certain action copied from others. Do you not think this is also learned?

 

Why so cut and dry? We learn from those around us, but there are those who grow up in the same environments but still have different opinions of what is right or wrong. Still a learned behavior from something subtle that impacted one and not the other? I believe so.

[Phi for All]

Phi,

But some others would feel differently about this. Let's say for instance someone might believe in "culling the herd", for lack of a better term, rather than calling it murder. Or some others might believe in geneticly manipulating the population with intelligence while killing off those who don't fit their criteria. Or I'm sure there may be many other examples of someone who doesn't believe that murder is wrong for their own reasons, so while what you say fits the realm of right and wrong, it seems that it only does from a public view.

Those are still justifications. And they will be different between cultures, but my point was that they are rational decisions, justified by supporting the strengths we build our society upon, not "totally derived from our feelings and largely influenced by the feelings of the majority" as the OP stated.

 

For instance, aborting an unborn child repulses me personally. For me, I would have to say it would be the wrong thing to do. But I can rationally allow that giving a woman the right to do as she chooses with her own body, including the potential for life she is harboring, is the right thing to do. Abortion at a predetermined stage in a pregnancy is not murder to me. I override my "feelings" and permit rational thought to support the freedoms and strengths that make my society function.

[At just flattened at!]

Take a dangerous place in the world, where people think nothing of abducting and murdering someone for the change in their pocket. It may be just one person but it can be many people. Like a bad neighborhood but much worse.

 

The acts of the people in such a place would be considered by our standards to wrong, but to them it's the norm. They have no mental problems it's just how they have grown up to be. Take a young child out of that place and put them with another family, a family that would be considered "good and normal" and the child won't grow up like it's parents in the bad neighborhood. The child wont learn that lifestyle and that sense of right and wrong.

 

 

 

Can you give me a reason why abortion or any crime for that matter is wrong? And I mean without taking a perspective at all.

 

Edit: And without any feeling involved.

Edited April 11, 2012 by At just flattened at!

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Those are still justifications.

Anything that anyone says that support their views of right and wrong are justifications.

 

 

For instance, aborting an unborn child repulses me personally. For me, I would have to say it would be the wrong thing to do. But I can rationally allow that giving a woman the right to do as she chooses with her own body, including the potential for life she is harboring, is the right thing to do. Abortion at a predetermined stage in a pregnancy is not murder to me. I override my "feelings" and permit rational thought to support the freedoms and strengths that make my society function.

I would have to say that this is still not a feeling that the majority have. So this couldn't be an influence to you by majority feeling. This would have to be an influence of a majority of those who you associate with. I think that would be more accurate. Which is understandable when talking about how someone can be influenced by a majority. It is not the majority as a whole, but rather a majority of those that are interacted with.

 

 

At just flattened at!,

Can you give me a reason why abortion or any crime for that matter is wrong? And I mean without taking a perspective at all.

Yes, murder for that matter can be looked at in a way that is subjectively wrong. Because, it is detrimental to the growth of a species. Things that can be looked at subjectively, I think can be determined to be right or wrong. But you'll find in most cases that feelings enter into peoples minds when making decisions. Not to bring politics in the mix, but this is what always get's me about politics. People want to argue a change that is based off of their feelings of right and wrong, but they want to do so from a subjective viewpoint. It's kind of contradicting in my mind at times.

[At just flattened at!]

But doesn't killing leave the strong and get rid of the weak? Like a sped up natural selection it would in-fact drive evolution and as a species we would grow stronger?

 

What we have at the minute are societies that protect the weak and stunt the growth of the strong, if all who were considered weak were killed, as a species would we not grow stronger?

[JustinW]

But doesn't killing leave the strong and get rid of the weak?

Not necessarily. Different people have different strengths. A rocket scientist may get offed by a brute that's dumber than mud. I think with all the different attributes of a species that murder is overall detrimental to it's growth.

[Phi for All]

Anything that anyone says that support their views of right and wrong are justifications.

Yes, but you seemed to think the views you shared about "culling the herd" and such were more than that, otherwise why bring them up?

 

I would have to say that this is still not a feeling that the majority have. So this couldn't be an influence to you by majority feeling. This would have to be an influence of a majority of those who you associate with. I think that would be more accurate. Which is understandable when talking about how someone can be influenced by a majority. It is not the majority as a whole, but rather a majority of those that are interacted with.

My views on abortion are NOT shared by the majority of people with whom I associate. My views on marital fidelity are NOT shared by the majority of people with whom I associate. My views on sworn oaths and many other subjects I feel deal with right and wrong are NOT necessarily shared by the majority of people with whom I associate. Nonetheless, they are views I hold for rational reasons, not because I "feel" this way or am swayed by the majority to "feel" this way.

 

But doesn't killing leave the strong and get rid of the weak? Like a sped up natural selection it would in-fact drive evolution and as a species we would grow stronger?

We're a species that has developed high intelligence, intricate communication, mutual cooperation, advanced social structure and precision tool use to compensate for being physically weaker than many other species. Why do you think physical strength is a more desirable trait?

 

I'm reminded of a recent post from a creationist where he asked why we don't all have wings by now if evolution was true.

[At just flattened at!]

It's not that I think that physical strength is more desirable, I should have stated that by weak I meant less able in any sense. But a smart guy could outwit a brute and the brute would die, hang on a minute didn't this happen.

 

 

 

As for the wings argument it's the same reason we don't have eyes as good as a hawk or smell like a dog or hair like a chimp, we didn't need it, or it was better not to have it.

 

 

(I would like to point out that I believe murder and genocide are wrong (because I was taught so) and that I'm not a raging nut job)

[Phi for All]

As for the wings argument it's the same reason we don't have eyes as good as a hawk or smell like a dog or hair like a chimp, we didn't need it, or it was better not to have it.

 

 

(I would like to point out that I believe murder and genocide are wrong (because I was taught so) and that I'm not a raging nut job)

Only a raging nut job would want to smell like a dog!

[At just flattened at!]

I can't decide if it's detrimental to the species overall (whether our current route is the right one for our survival or a more animal-istic society would see us on this planet longer), your points have certainly got me thinking Justin.

 

One thing is for certain though I think we need more natural selection in our current society, half the people I meet should be left outside in the cold or eaten by a bear.

 

I just saw that Phi I was miles away for a second then

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Yes, but you seemed to think the views you shared about "culling the herd" and such were more than that, otherwise why bring them up?

Because I was trying to prove the point that one persons view of right and wrong may be different from another, and for that reason right and wrong are not set in stone.

 

My views on abortion are NOT shared by the majority of people with whom I associate.

And they are also not shared by the majority in the US. Your views on abortion spur from rational reasoning. That I get. Let me ask you this: Did you get in the habit of using rational thought to make your decisions on your own, or do you think you might have been influenced to do so by a person or event in your life? Also, do most of those that you associate with have high standards where viewpoints based on rationality are conscerned? What I'm getting at is that this rational thought that you base your views on are more than likely shared (if not a specific viewpoint) by a majority of those you associate with. I don't know...It was just a thought, and the further I take it, the less sense it makes. I hate it when that happens. I think I had a notion that the way people think about the decisions they make might work in the same way as behaviors are learned from those around you. Anyway...maybe, maybe not.

 

I'm reminded of a recent post from a creationist where he asked why we don't all have wings by now if evolution was true.

Did you tell him it was because you can't find a cupcake in the sky?

 

 

At just flattened at!,

One thing is for certain though I think we need more natural selection in our current society, half the people I meet should be left outside in the cold or eaten by a bear.

If there wasn't any truth to this statement so many people wouldn't think it all the time. It does seem like we're making it easier and easier for the dreggs of society to be more comfortable. Almost to the point of being just as comfortable as the middle class people that work there ass off just to get by. If it gets too much worse I may have to jump in with the dreggs just out of spite. Edited April 13, 2012 by JustinW

[zapatos]

As for the wings argument it's the same reason we don't have eyes as good as a hawk or smell like a dog or hair like a chimp, we didn't need it, or it was better not to have it.

I know this is off topic but just wanted to comment on this statement.

 

It is wrong to think we would have wings if we needed them. Or that the reason we don't have them is because we didn't need them or it was better not to have them.

 

You also have to be presented with the option. Wings may be the best thing that could ever happen to man, but if no mutations led in that direction, then we would never get the chance to select for them or not.

[JustinW]

You also have to be presented with the option. Wings may be the best thing that could ever happen to man, but if no mutations led in that direction, then we would never get the chance to select for them or not.

Also there would be no feasable reason for a human to need wings. There is nothing to be gained, except that it would be friggin' awesome.

[questionposter]

It is wrong to think we would have wings if we needed them.

 

Yep, dinosaurs needed to live underground, but they're still wiped out. Though, I suppose they are interesting enough for an advanced species to want to bring them back to life...