Is wrong always wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How history records an event has nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong. The true story may never be told and the perps never brought to any kind of justice, but wrongdoing will always be wrongdoing regardless of who won or lost. The holocaust, genocides, massacres, these thing are horrific and wrong, the fact that the world wasn't told about it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

There is a problem however, with deciding what is wrong and what isn't. Moral relativism suggests that what is moral to one culture may not be in another. Who gets to make the call?

And then there's sometimes when you're faced with only choices that are both wrong. So, you make the best choice, the least wrong one. Maybe you can redress the situation at a later time.
 
How history records an event has nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong. The true story may never be told and the perps never brought to any kind of justice, but wrongdoing will always be wrongdoing regardless of who won or lost. The holocaust, genocides, massacres, these thing are horrific and wrong, the fact that the world wasn't told about it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

There is a problem however, with deciding what is wrong and what isn't. Moral relativism suggests that what is moral to one culture may not be in another. Who gets to make the call?

And then there's sometimes when you're faced with only choices that are both wrong. So, you make the best choice, the least wrong one. Maybe you can redress the situation at a later time.

Who among you is fit to judge ME?

First question of organizing a society.

Religions and Nations come and go but the question that causes them remains: Who among us is fit to judge ME and MY thoughts & actions?


:eusa_think: Wouldn't you like to have been there when the first suggestion of a Supernatural Being be given the job and, oh by the way - "I know just how He feeeeeeeeeels about this particular subject".
 
Right and wrong are abstract ideas that change constantly. Factors that go into wether an action is right or wrong are morality, strength, hindsight, and side of the issue. Very few people if any at all are capable of standing back from an issue, looking at it from all sides, and then unbiasly rendering a descision of right or wrong. This is why religion and morality are fought over constantly, each one views themselves as right and everyone else as wrong.
 
And now for a transition to good vs. bad and the roll of truth;

200px-Zen_motorcycle.jpg
 
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.

Are you sure?

Stalin won in Russia, yet history still judged him wrong. Mao won in China, yet history still records the atrocities he recorded. The defenders at the Alamo lost, yet no one thinks they were wrong, including the country that defeated them and judged them traitors at the time. It is not winning that makes you right, it is being right. People like to think that ethics are situational, but the truth is that right and wrong are absolutes.
 
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.

Why do we admire people who stood up to tyranny and lost if morality is so fluid? Who has not heard of William Wallace and admired his struggle against the people who thought they owned him?
 
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.

Are you sure?

Stalin won in Russia, yet history still judged him wrong. Mao won in China, yet history still records the atrocities he recorded. The defenders at the Alamo lost, yet no one thinks they were wrong, including the country that defeated them and judged them traitors at the time. It is not winning that makes you right, it is being right. People like to think that ethics are situational, but the truth is that right and wrong are absolutes.
I believe you are looking at it incorrectly. Yes, Stalin won but the society that he won with, its morality, vision and way of life did not. Morality of past events is not set is stone as the morality that is judging it is also fluid. “Wining” at the moment is not the matter her but rather did the society and morality of one group win over the other. In that context, if Hitler won he would have been considered a great man up until the point that Nazi philosophy ‘lost’ to another and the actions would be re-judged to whatever new end. Win or lose is a rather bad word to use in this context but does get the base point across.

Right and wrong are not absolutes but subjects of the individual or society doing the judging. Nor is right and wrong a direct consequence of military victory. It is rather the subject of collective beliefs. Those beliefs do not always align with the strongest but they are never constant. Virtually all actions will be judged moral at one time and immoral at another by several different philosophies as time goes by. If right and wrong were such absolutes then the results could be measured and quantified. We could say with an absolute that one action was right or wrong. The fact that there has been such a HUGE variance in what one culture considers right and wrong as compared to other cultures points to the fact that they are not absolute but rather very fluid. There are TENDANCIES that we have as a species. Those are hardwired into us as a survival mechanism but even those change based on circumstance. In the end, there are very few things in this universe that can be called absolutes and none of those deal with humans or their doings.
 
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.

Are you sure?

Stalin won in Russia, yet history still judged him wrong. Mao won in China, yet history still records the atrocities he recorded. The defenders at the Alamo lost, yet no one thinks they were wrong, including the country that defeated them and judged them traitors at the time. It is not winning that makes you right, it is being right. People like to think that ethics are situational, but the truth is that right and wrong are absolutes.
I believe you are looking at it incorrectly. Yes, Stalin won but the society that he won with, its morality, vision and way of life did not. Morality of past events is not set is stone as the morality that is judging it is also fluid. “Wining” at the moment is not the matter her but rather did the society and morality of one group win over the other. In that context, if Hitler won he would have been considered a great man up until the point that Nazi philosophy ‘lost’ to another and the actions would be re-judged to whatever new end. Win or lose is a rather bad word to use in this context but does get the base point across.

Right and wrong are not absolutes but subjects of the individual or society doing the judging. Nor is right and wrong a direct consequence of military victory. It is rather the subject of collective beliefs. Those beliefs do not always align with the strongest but they are never constant. Virtually all actions will be judged moral at one time and immoral at another by several different philosophies as time goes by. If right and wrong were such absolutes then the results could be measured and quantified. We could say with an absolute that one action was right or wrong. The fact that there has been such a HUGE variance in what one culture considers right and wrong as compared to other cultures points to the fact that they are not absolute but rather very fluid. There are TENDANCIES that we have as a species. Those are hardwired into us as a survival mechanism but even those change based on circumstance. In the end, there are very few things in this universe that can be called absolutes and none of those deal with humans or their doings.

It is always easy to argue that morals are relative, yet some things seem to defy that viewpoint. Even primates seem to understand that some things are wrong.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward : The Primate Diaries

Just something to think about.
 
Are you sure?

Stalin won in Russia, yet history still judged him wrong. Mao won in China, yet history still records the atrocities he recorded. The defenders at the Alamo lost, yet no one thinks they were wrong, including the country that defeated them and judged them traitors at the time. It is not winning that makes you right, it is being right. People like to think that ethics are situational, but the truth is that right and wrong are absolutes.
I believe you are looking at it incorrectly. Yes, Stalin won but the society that he won with, its morality, vision and way of life did not. Morality of past events is not set is stone as the morality that is judging it is also fluid. “Wining” at the moment is not the matter her but rather did the society and morality of one group win over the other. In that context, if Hitler won he would have been considered a great man up until the point that Nazi philosophy ‘lost’ to another and the actions would be re-judged to whatever new end. Win or lose is a rather bad word to use in this context but does get the base point across.

Right and wrong are not absolutes but subjects of the individual or society doing the judging. Nor is right and wrong a direct consequence of military victory. It is rather the subject of collective beliefs. Those beliefs do not always align with the strongest but they are never constant. Virtually all actions will be judged moral at one time and immoral at another by several different philosophies as time goes by. If right and wrong were such absolutes then the results could be measured and quantified. We could say with an absolute that one action was right or wrong. The fact that there has been such a HUGE variance in what one culture considers right and wrong as compared to other cultures points to the fact that they are not absolute but rather very fluid. There are TENDANCIES that we have as a species. Those are hardwired into us as a survival mechanism but even those change based on circumstance. In the end, there are very few things in this universe that can be called absolutes and none of those deal with humans or their doings.

It is always easy to argue that morals are relative, yet some things seem to defy that viewpoint. Even primates seem to understand that some things are wrong.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward : The Primate Diaries

Just something to think about.
That does not defy relative morals. The study is quite interesting but not really all that conclusive. There will always be a simple ‘morality’ that is coded into our being. The grater point was that society can shape that. I would wonder what the chimps would have done if they were not able to see the other one when they get their reward. What is to say that social hierarchy or fear of reprisal from the other chimps was not the deciding factor over a hidden morality. I can’t read the actual study as you have to purchase it so I don’t know if they factored those things into the study. Either way, it is never in question that we are not born with some sort of moral compass. Had that not been the case there is no way we would have survived. I believe that you would be hard pressed to determine that those morals were some base set of right and wrong that was not subjective rather than a simple set of instructions that help ensure survival.
Out of time – will get back to this in a few…
 
I believe you are looking at it incorrectly. Yes, Stalin won but the society that he won with, its morality, vision and way of life did not. Morality of past events is not set is stone as the morality that is judging it is also fluid. “Wining” at the moment is not the matter her but rather did the society and morality of one group win over the other. In that context, if Hitler won he would have been considered a great man up until the point that Nazi philosophy ‘lost’ to another and the actions would be re-judged to whatever new end. Win or lose is a rather bad word to use in this context but does get the base point across.

Right and wrong are not absolutes but subjects of the individual or society doing the judging. Nor is right and wrong a direct consequence of military victory. It is rather the subject of collective beliefs. Those beliefs do not always align with the strongest but they are never constant. Virtually all actions will be judged moral at one time and immoral at another by several different philosophies as time goes by. If right and wrong were such absolutes then the results could be measured and quantified. We could say with an absolute that one action was right or wrong. The fact that there has been such a HUGE variance in what one culture considers right and wrong as compared to other cultures points to the fact that they are not absolute but rather very fluid. There are TENDANCIES that we have as a species. Those are hardwired into us as a survival mechanism but even those change based on circumstance. In the end, there are very few things in this universe that can be called absolutes and none of those deal with humans or their doings.

It is always easy to argue that morals are relative, yet some things seem to defy that viewpoint. Even primates seem to understand that some things are wrong.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward : The Primate Diaries

Just something to think about.
That does not defy relative morals. The study is quite interesting but not really all that conclusive. There will always be a simple ‘morality’ that is coded into our being. The grater point was that society can shape that. I would wonder what the chimps would have done if they were not able to see the other one when they get their reward. What is to say that social hierarchy or fear of reprisal from the other chimps was not the deciding factor over a hidden morality. I can’t read the actual study as you have to purchase it so I don’t know if they factored those things into the study. Either way, it is never in question that we are not born with some sort of moral compass. Had that not been the case there is no way we would have survived. I believe that you would be hard pressed to determine that those morals were some base set of right and wrong that was not subjective rather than a simple set of instructions that help ensure survival.
Out of time – will get back to this in a few…

I think we are having a problem here because we are talking about two different things.

Some things are always wrong. Some things are wrong at times, and right at other times. Some things, even though they are wrong, are acceptable in extreme circumstances.

Murder is always wrong.

Sex before marriage is one of those things that is relevant to the culture and times, and is flexible.

Theft is always wrong, but if you are starving it is acceptable to steal food to eat.

Wrong is always wrong, but wrong is not always absolute.
 
That very well could be. I could go on and debate the issue but I believe that in this case it may be pointless as the words are not really adequate to describe what we are getting at and we might just be debating separate things as you stated. I think that, for the most part, we agree on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Right and wrong are decided by the victorious.

Unless you mention the Alamo or any of the myriads of great battles through the ages that were lost by the righteous.

Would their story have been recorded differently if the war had gone the same way as the battle?

I think that makes a difference. However, you raise a good point that we can thank modern communications for injecting a certain amount of responsibility into modern politics, making them FAR superior to Ancient and even Medieval politics. They can't spin it or suppress it nearly so easily today.

The vision Hitler imagined for earth would have been impossible just because he and his government would have never been able to suppress the horror of their power from those who he would have depended on to found the next economy after the war. Even European rich conservatives have limits as to what they'll pay for security and keeping the peasants in line and producing.
 
Last edited:
It is always easy to argue that morals are relative, yet some things seem to defy that viewpoint. Even primates seem to understand that some things are wrong.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward : The Primate Diaries

Just something to think about.
That does not defy relative morals. The study is quite interesting but not really all that conclusive. There will always be a simple ‘morality’ that is coded into our being. The grater point was that society can shape that. I would wonder what the chimps would have done if they were not able to see the other one when they get their reward. What is to say that social hierarchy or fear of reprisal from the other chimps was not the deciding factor over a hidden morality. I can’t read the actual study as you have to purchase it so I don’t know if they factored those things into the study. Either way, it is never in question that we are not born with some sort of moral compass. Had that not been the case there is no way we would have survived. I believe that you would be hard pressed to determine that those morals were some base set of right and wrong that was not subjective rather than a simple set of instructions that help ensure survival.
Out of time – will get back to this in a few…

I think we are having a problem here because we are talking about two different things.

Some things are always wrong. Some things are wrong at times, and right at other times. Some things, even though they are wrong, are acceptable in extreme circumstances.

Murder is always wrong.

Sex before marriage is one of those things that is relevant to the culture and times, and is flexible.

Theft is always wrong, but if you are starving it is acceptable to steal food to eat.

Wrong is always wrong, but wrong is not always absolute.

When trying to decide what is wrong, we need to know whether we are talking on a political, social or ethical level.

The Political will go with aspirations often not good and what is considered wrong will be what is not wanted.

The social will go on control and what is considered wrong will be what goes against that control.

The ethical will go on ethics and on this level what is wrong will be what causes unnecessary harm to others. An action will be judged by it's intentions not outcome.
 
Last edited:
Granny says not always...

... like when people think she's wrong...

... an' den it turns out she been right all along...

... dat's a fer'instance of when wrong ain't always wrong.
:confused:
 
An action will be judged by it's intentions not outcome.
Absolutely not. Intentions are not more important than outcomes when it comes to the judgment of morality in any long term sense. You may get intentions to be considered in the court of law or for immediate people of that time but in the end it is the outcomes that your actions will be judged by. Can you find an example that supports intentions being the deciding factor?
 
An action will be judged by it's intentions not outcome.
Absolutely not. Intentions are not more important than outcomes when it comes to the judgment of morality in any long term sense. You may get intentions to be considered in the court of law or for immediate people of that time but in the end it is the outcomes that your actions will be judged by. Can you find an example that supports intentions being the deciding factor?

You're right. But alexa has a valid point.

The imaginary friend of my youth always forgave me when I finally admitted I fucked up. It was kind of a rule.

That's called 'judging with mercy'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top