Is wrong always wrong?

[AVG-JOE]

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?

We only admire losers who we think are right. All other failures got what they deserved.

Completely subjective.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

Getting caught or not does not mean shit. Watch the news and all over the world you will see what I'm talking about. You may be correct about Hitler. Roosevelt and the French while appalled by the killing of the Jews turned there heads while Russia raped Poland and "diapered" 40,000 polish men women and children. As for the Jews, they are acting against terrorists, not ancient tribes from the bible. As for the Indians, they fought the good fight,but lost. They, and all the folks who have white guilt need to get over it. And Washington was considered a traitor and murderer. So in short, weather or not something is wright or wrong depends on the prospective of the person pondering the question.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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…

The way I see that is "There will always be an INDIVIDUAL ‘morality’ that is coded into our being."

Even identical twins don't share the EXACT same moral code when comfortably settled into middle age. Similar, yes... but not identical.

There HAS to be set of agreed upon rules of conduct that NOBODY is completely happy with for a free society to function. The closer the rules get to becoming a single individuals vision of morality, the closer you get to an absolute monarchy.

Christians and Muslims share many codes of conduct, but not all, and many are at odds with each other between the two. History also seems to be proving that the ONLY way to keep those two groups from killing each other over whose code should be followed is to put them in a secular society that puts the shared values into law and places responsibility for compliance with morals beyond the agreed upon law firmly in the hands of the individuals. The more responsibility given the individual, the closer you get to seeing 'freedom'.

Even within groups there is conflict - example: Some Christians would like to see all commerce illegal on Sundays and some believe the day of rest should be Saturday. A truly secular society takes care to protect neither group, allowing everyone to choose for themselves.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Was murder 'wrong' when Alexander used it as his vehicle to becoming "The Great"?

Was murder 'wrong' when the Europeans used it as the most efficient method of industrializing the planet ahead of it's time? Let's face it, if the Europeans had come to the new world, found it occupied and went home - things would be different.

Is sex outside of marriage EVER wrong when 2 consenting adults are involved?

Well... that depends on WHO IS ASKED.

Right -vs- Wrong is, and always will be, completely subjective and at the whim of he or she who can back up their rule making with force.

 

[FA_Q2]

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…

The way I see that is "There will always be an INDIVIDUAL ‘morality’ that is coded into our being."

Even identical twins don't share the EXACT same moral code when comfortably settled into middle age. Similar, yes... but not identical.

There HAS to be set of agreed upon rules of conduct that NOBODY is completely happy with for a free society to function. The closer the rules get to becoming a single individuals vision of morality, the closer you get to an absolute monarchy.

Christians and Muslims share many codes of conduct, but not all, and many are at odds with each other between the two. History also seems to be proving that the ONLY way to keep those two groups from killing each other over whose code should be followed is to put them in a secular society that puts the shared values into law and places responsibility for compliance with morals beyond the agreed upon law firmly in the hands of the individuals. The more responsibility given the individual, the closer you get to seeing 'freedom'.

Even within groups there is conflict - example: Some Christians would like to see all commerce illegal on Sundays and some believe the day of rest should be Saturday. A truly secular society takes care to protect neither group, allowing everyone to choose for themselves.

There is no difference from what you are talking about and what I was saying. Hardcoded morality will be similar for most people with similar family history but it is not universal. All people are different.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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…

The way I see that is "There will always be an INDIVIDUAL ‘morality’ that is coded into our being."

Even identical twins don't share the EXACT same moral code when comfortably settled into middle age. Similar, yes... but not identical.

There HAS to be set of agreed upon rules of conduct that NOBODY is completely happy with for a free society to function. The closer the rules get to becoming a single individuals vision of morality, the closer you get to an absolute monarchy.

Christians and Muslims share many codes of conduct, but not all, and many are at odds with each other between the two. History also seems to be proving that the ONLY way to keep those two groups from killing each other over whose code should be followed is to put them in a secular society that puts the shared values into law and places responsibility for compliance with morals beyond the agreed upon law firmly in the hands of the individuals. The more responsibility given the individual, the closer you get to seeing 'freedom'.

Even within groups there is conflict - example: Some Christians would like to see all commerce illegal on Sundays and some believe the day of rest should be Saturday. A truly secular society takes care to protect neither group, allowing everyone to choose for themselves.

There is no difference from what you are talking about and what I was saying. Hardcoded morality will be similar for most people with similar family history but it is not universal. All people are different.

Yup. Similar but subjective. Similar based on connections both genetic and communal but subjective to the whims of evolution as mistakes are pruned by failure.

 

[G.T.]

The question is redundant/makes no sense.

If wrong is not always wrong, then wrong wasn't wrong so it doesn't pertain to the question.

But beyond being a stickler,

Things considered "wrong" by anyone with more than 4 brain-cells are evaluated by their circumstances. Thus, no two acts are exactly alike so you're always comparing oranges to giraffes thus, wrong is always wrong BUT some acts considered "wrong" under one circumstance, are not automatically "wrong" under a totally different circumstance.

Laws and Legalities aside.