Is wrong always wrong?

[JBeukema]

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

 

[elvis]

wrong is wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

wrong is wrong.

Always, regardless of who does it or whose orders they claim to be following?

 

[elvis]

wrong is wrong.

Always, regardless of who does it or whose orders they claim to be following?

cetaris paribus, yes.

 

[Obamerican]

I smell a set up....................................

Just sayin'

 

[JBeukema]

wrong is wrong.

Always, regardless of who does it or whose orders they claim to be following?

cetaris paribus, yes.

So let us continue.

Is it evil to advocate or support an evil act? (eg: if Hitler's genocides were evil, would it be evil to try to justify them or claim they were not evil?)

 

[AVG-JOE]

History proves that there is no such thing as "right & wrong" - only getting caught or not.

And if you get caught by someone more powerful than you, you're fucked - and not fucked in the good way.

 

[JBeukema]

History proves that there is no such thing as "right & wrong" - only getting caught or not.

I disagree. I'd say whether one 'gets caught' is of less matter, ultimately, than whether one emerges victorious or defeated.

Had Hitler one, he'd be hailed as a hero for purifying the population, much as American settlers are hailed as heroes who conquered the land- the actions against the natives generally whitewashed and mentioned only in passing.

Likewise, the Jews won and hence their actions against the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, and others are rarely if ever questioned.

Had the redcoats won, Washington would be known as a traitor and murderer.

 

[TheBrain]

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

Wrong is ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes it is right to be wrong.


Killing is wrong, but killing Bin Laden was a wrong that was right to commit.

 

[dilloduck]

If I do it, it's right.

 

[Zander]

Right and wrong are decided by the victorious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

wrong is wrong.

Always, regardless of who does it or whose orders they claim to be following?

cetaris paribus, yes.

Amen

 

[Quantum Windbag]

History proves that there is no such thing as "right & wrong" - only getting caught or not.

I disagree. I'd say whether one 'gets caught' is of less matter, ultimately, than whether one emerges victorious or defeated.

Had Hitler one, he'd be hailed as a hero for purifying the population, much as American settlers are hailed as heroes who conquered the land- the actions against the natives generally whitewashed and mentioned only in passing.

Likewise, the Jews won and hence their actions against the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, and others are rarely if ever questioned.

Had the redcoats won, Washington would be known as a traitor and murderer.

Starting to get the message about eugenics? Glad to see you wising up.

 

[dilloduck]

If man would quit reflecting on what happened we'd never have to bother with it.

 

[FA_Q2]

If man would quit reflecting on what happened we'd never have to bother with it.

And hence would not be able to learn from his mistakes.

Right and wrong are determined wholly out of the society that you are in, the circumstances that surround you and those that write the histories after the fact. Black and whit morality may7 seem like truth but the fact of the matter is that he world is rarely black and white and there are always circumstances.

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

Wrong is ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes it is right to be wrong.


Killing is wrong, but killing Bin Laden was a wrong that was right to commit.

Doublespeak. It is wrong OR right, there is no wrongright. That is not possible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

History proves that there is no such thing as "right & wrong" - only getting caught or not.

I disagree. I'd say whether one 'gets caught' is of less matter, ultimately, than whether one emerges victorious or defeated.

Had Hitler one, he'd be hailed as a hero for purifying the population, much as American settlers are hailed as heroes who conquered the land- the actions against the natives generally whitewashed and mentioned only in passing.

Likewise, the Jews won and hence their actions against the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, and others are rarely if ever questioned.

Had the redcoats won, Washington would be known as a traitor and murderer.

Those are the EXACT same examples that flitted through my mind when I concluded that "history proves that there is no such thing as 'right and wrong' only getting caught or not".

Another example is Alexander the Thug: If that guy had tried to pull off the same career that earned him the title of "The Great" in modern times he would have been strung up as a punk gangster with delusions of divinity and a severe alcohol issue.

He didn't get 'caught' because his band of thugs WAS the law at the time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

Wrong is ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes it is right to be wrong.


Killing is wrong, but killing Bin Laden was a wrong that was right to commit.

If the Muslims win this war, history will record the brutal assassination of the father of the modern Muslim political influence.

I'm telling you guys - there are as many opinions as to what is right and wrong as there are humans capable of having an opinion.

Right and Wrong are COMPLETELY subjective. He who controls the strongest band of thugs gets to decide what's right and wrong. It's no wonder some poor bastard way back when appealed to a super natural judge and screamed "GOD will avenge me!" right before a thug from the winning team lopped off his opinion maker. That's why humanity requires government, and agreed upon rules of conduct, with punishment for 'wrongs' to remain above simple animal status.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Right and wrong are decided by the victorious.

EXACTLY!

There is no appeal (at least none with any teeth) to a power higher than the victorious.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If man would quit reflecting on what happened we'd never have to bother with it.

And hence would not be able to learn from his mistakes.

Right and wrong are determined wholly out of the society that you are in, the circumstances that surround you and those that write the histories after the fact. Black and whit morality may7 seem like truth but the fact of the matter is that he world is rarely black and white and there are always circumstances.

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

Wrong is ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes it is right to be wrong.


Killing is wrong, but killing Bin Laden was a wrong that was right to commit.

Doublespeak. It is wrong OR right, there is no wrongright. That is not possible.

Leaving right and wrong, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Caroljo]

Or can the same act be wrong when one person does it and righteous when another does the same thing?

Wrong is ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes it is right to be wrong.


Killing is wrong, but killing Bin Laden was a wrong that was right to commit.

Like "An eye for an eye" ??
It's wrong to murder someone.
But it's ok that we killed Bin Laden because he has murdered so many others.