Big Think

Norman McDowell on January 31, 2008, 4:37 AM

There’s no such thing as right. There’s no such thing as wrong.

Matt MCKinlay on January 31, 2008, 8:00 PM

I hope you can stick to that philosophy when someone nicks your stuff or rips you off.

I reckon everyone has a moral compass about what is right or wrong. And, everyone has some idea about what should be done to balance things out again, whether restitution, apology, vengeance, payback or some other penalty.

a a on February 1, 2008, 3:58 AM

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three rights make a left ;-)

But seriously, right and wrong are subjective and justice is blind.

Karren Brown on February 1, 2008, 9:46 PM

Life has taught me that no one gets away with anything. It’s like street rules – what goes around comes around, only harder.

brian kingsley on February 1, 2008, 11:48 PM

Of course right and wrong exist, the idea that we all get to do what ever we want is ludicrous. I feel completely justified in saying that the Holocaust was evil, and that feeding starving children is good. I believe that we ought to behave as though people have at least as much worth as we believe that we ourself posses.

We create a morality collectively as a society that attaches consequences to actions that we have deemed inappropriate, and to answer the original question, I think one of the ideals we’ve created is that vigilantly justice is wrong.

Zachary Wolk on February 2, 2008, 7:44 AM

nothing absolutely

Norman McDowell on February 3, 2008, 4:37 AM

I disagree briankingsley. There is no such thing as good and evil either.

I did not say that we should all do what we want. All I said that right, wrong, good and evil don’t exist. There is no universal moral compass by which we can compare things. There is no “right” way of doing anything, because everything is circumstantial.

Morality Question: What if you and your entire family were kidnapped and taken somewhere. The kidnappers have your entire family tied and standing at the end of a firing squad of lets say 12 men. They then hand you a gun with one bullet and say, “Unless you kill this complete stranger we will shoot your family”.

What is the “right” thing to do?

Now if you can’t answer this without trying to get around the question then the answer is simple. There is no right thing to do.

There are “more harmful” things, “more preferable circumstances”, and certainly “tragic losses”. However trying to narrow something as complicated as WWII or as ambiguous as the lives we live into “good” and “evil” categories is irrational.

a a on February 6, 2008, 10:55 PM

BK – In addition to what Hugh has already said, you have to consider that the Nazis giving the orders thought that the Jews were evil and that they were doing the good thing. I agree with you that the Holocaust was evil. But, had the Nazis won, the history books written today would no doubt glorify the Holocaust with a beautiful name like the “Glorious Cleansing” or something. This is where the argument of good / evil is subjective to one’s perspective. You and I may agree that the Holocaust was evil, but there are those who would say that we are evil for saying the Holocaust was evil.

Nick S on February 11, 2008, 2:53 PM

Punishment should ALWAYS fit the crime. If you kill a man, YOU DIE, today! not in 20 years. you don’t get the option to sit on death row appealing your case til you die of old age. You die in the way you kill, shoot a man, get shot, stab a man, get stabbed. If we lived in a society where Crime was dealt with Harshly, less crime would be committed. I remember as a young boy, hearing stories of other countries that applied this law, if they caught you stealing they cut of your hand. I remember thinking," I wouldn’t steal anything in that country." When I read stories of psychos who rape and murder a 6 year old girl, it infuriates me, then this As*hole cries insanity. HOW?? granted you are insane for doing that but that not an excuse. OK! YOU’RE INSANE, strap his butt in the electric chair, tell him its a ROllercoaster, HE’S INSANE he won’t know the difference, right? better yet, strap him down on a table in the showers at a prison and let JUSTICE work itself out.

Adam Winski on February 13, 2008, 1:06 AM

Donny Mac, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I can not agree that right and wrong depend on perspective. There are certainly gray areas (there was a great article in the New York Times Magazine on this not too long ago) such as would you be able to push one innocent man in front of a moving train if doing so would save five people? With that being said, certain acts (murdering an innocent person, stealing that which isn’t yours for example) are objectively wrong. So while not everything can be judged as purely good, or purely evil, such ideals do exist on a universal level.

Norman McDowell on February 14, 2008, 3:04 AM

For everyone who just argued that right and wrong exist: thats, Awinski, Ralph P, rezzerection, and whoever else argued that:

If there is such a thing as right and wrong. a universal understanding. An ultimate moral truth. Than please prove it, and DEFINE it.

Please define what is “right”. a simple definition would be nice.

Nick S on February 17, 2008, 2:50 PM

Ahughman,
It’s real simple, anything that causes harm to anyone else is wrong. I life is not to hurt or cause pain to others but to live in a unified state. I feel that what some people consider wrong may not allows be. For example I don’t do drugs, but I don’t see it as wrong if someone else does them, but if they do them then get in a car and drive then that is wrong. It becomes a case of possibly harming someone. personally I feel that my definition of wrong is anything that prevents the health productive life of others. I feel that many religious people such as fred phelps is wrong, a criminal, a sinner, a liar, and anything else you want to attach to him, because he prevents others from living a healthy productive life.

Ralph p,
While you have your right to your oppinion and I respect that, Far to often that is the same excuse that criminals use in their defense, “It’s not my fault, i didn’t get enough love as a child, my mother didn’t bake me brownies, so I murdered 15 hookers and ate them.” My Mother came from a very abusive family, she still has many scars to show for it, but it made her stronger, and more loving to her children. She could have used that and became a serial killer, but she knew what pain was and didn’t want her children to know that.
Ghandi is a great example, just like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and many others. I believe that within every person on this planet lies the ability to kill and to inflect pain. But it’s up to the individual to rise above it and say no, I want to be better than that. Everytime they catch a rapist or a killer the first thing out of their mouth is,“it’s not my fault.” YES IT IS, I don’t care what you have gone through, you still have a brain and the ability to choose not to do something. Murderers and child molesters lose their rights the second they commit their crimes. and history and statistics have show that people like manson, and jeffery dahmer can not be rehabilitated and should be put down, just the same as a dog that mauls a child.

Norman McDowell on February 18, 2008, 4:17 AM

rezzerektion:

you say “ANYTHING that causes harm to anyone else is wrong”. you mention that doing drugs then driving would be such a wrong.

why isn’t just driving such a wrong?? drunk drivers dont have murderous intentions. surely the drunk driver no more wants to kill someone in an accident than a sober truck driver does. yet they both kill thousands of people every year.
Statistics show that only 40% of car accident fatalities occur because of driving under the influence. that means more people die from normal people driving cars, than intoxicated drivers.

with your reasoning why isn’t driving a truck wrong? why isn’t driving a car, or even sitting in a car and being conducive to a killing machine, wrong?

do you ever drive a car or ride in a car?

are hurricanes wrong for killing people? I’m sure you think thats a dumb question but you said “ANYTHING that does harm to someone else is wrong” . if you say: no hurricanes are not wrong. than you must have meant only PEOPLE can be wright or wrong.

so if your refined definition is “Any person that does harm to someone else is wrong”. than my question is: is self defense wrong?
If your own child, or mother, or whoever, was being raped by a man, would you rather her take it or try and defend herself?

would you like her to rationally explain to the man why he shouldn’t be raping her?? would that be the “RIGHT” thing to do?

Please explain. And for the record I asked to define what is “Right” not what is wrong. So far nobody has been able to answer.

Norman McDowell on February 19, 2008, 7:39 AM

Ralph P:

What you are defining is right in the sense of “correct”. I agree with your thoughts on this subject. I agree that there is universal truth, I like what your take is on the subject and what you’ve written.

But, the "right’ I wish to define is one based in morality, not reality.
What you’ve defined is: There is a “right” answer to the question “what is the origin of the force we know as gravity?”. or in a much more simple example. There is a right answer to the question “what is 5 3?”.

In that sense there is absolutely a “right” answer. I agree with you completely.

However the right that I have been debating and the one that rezzerektion brings up is the moral right and wrong. A much different sense of the word.

You can say that there is a right answer to the question: “what the origin of life?” but you cannot say there is a right answer to the question “how should a man live?”.

There is no “correct” way for a man to live. Only a healthy way, or a positive way, or a destructive way etc…

This is the question nobody has yet answered, and in my opinion nobody ever will.

“what is right?” as in the right thing to do. Not “what is correct”.

Nick S on February 21, 2008, 1:28 AM

Ahughman,

Driving a car is not wrong, driving a car under the influence of anything, including under the influence of stupidity. There are people out there that have caused accidents and killed people only for the simple fact that they were stupid, horseplaying, hot rodding, or the simply because they don’t know how to drive. Others are called accidents for that fact, they are accidents, not intentional.
As far as defense, it goes back to my previous post. Should the woman defend herself? Hell yes, Get the better of him and then ram a broom handle up his ass! an eye for an eye. The woman is not doing wrong be defending herself, the Rapist is doing from. It falls to the principles of every scientific theory. For every action an equal reaction. I believe in balanced wrongs if you will, It is wrong to murder someone, but not wrong to put to death a murderer. Balance of scales.
As far as what is right? I thought I answered that, But I can only answer for me, you must decide your own path of right and wrong. To me “RIGHT” is anything that makes you Happy, Without inflecting harm to any other being. And you are right, I should have been more direct. Wrong and Right in defined by humans pertaining to humans, A tornado is of nature, beyond our control, but anger, violence and murder is well in our grasp to control. We see killing some as wrong, Lions see it as dinner.

Nick S on February 22, 2008, 10:05 PM

Ahughman,
Does the womans responce come from anger, or does it come from fear? Flight or fight emotions. And if you believe in predetermination than what would be the point to life? If everything is pretermined than we could all just sit on our sofa, watch springer and eat cheetos, and just wait for the money, and happiness to just come to us, because if its predetermined, we’re gonna get it no matter what we do.
As far as happiness, you are focusing on the material, I don’t care if I’m ever Rich or famous, win the lottery or drive an expensive car. Happiness comes from inside, the way I live my life and do what I do.
I think you are trying to focus too hard on something entangible. There is a rule or theory called Ockham’s razor which states: “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” and the simplest solution is right and wrong can only be decided by you.
As far as the car crashes. Yes I can say that I’m alert and paying attention when I drive. Have I ever had an Accident? yes, because no matter how well you pay attention, someone else is not, and sometimes you don’t have time to react. or perhaps a tire blows, brakes fail, or other failures in the car exist. But statics show that 72% of accidents happen due to failure to control vehicle by driver.

Nick S on February 23, 2008, 7:58 PM

Ralph p.

You’re absolutely right, the woman should not defend herself, she should just lay there and take it, cause she should not spread anymore hate, and heck it’ll be over in a minute. besides no matter what she does, she’s gonna get raped, becasue it was predetermined for her. And apparently this suffering will bring her happiness, because apparently she is not able to be happy within herself, she must find it from an outside source. that is what you’re saying right? That we can’t possibly find happiness alone with ourselves, that only happens in make believe cartoons. I’m a single guy, with great friends, but I’m just as happy alone as I am when I’m out with friends. And my life is never predetermined. I choose my path, and my consequences. Your theory states, that on march the 8th of 2008 I’m to get hit by a car, well what happens if on march the 8th I have a cold and stay in bed, will that car drive thru my house, up my stairs and hit me in bed? I mean it is predetermined.

Norman McDowell on February 26, 2008, 4:22 PM

I think we’ve gotten away from the topic, gentlemen.
rezzerektion: I’m not trying to anger, but your argument is inconsistent and flawed.
I’m familiar with Ockham’s Razor and I have always disagreed with it. The simplest answer is not always the best answer. in fact any times its the worst. The world is not simple. Life is not simple. You cant sum things up as good bad right wrong, life is not like that. All things are not equal. That theory is never applicable in morality.
Check out your computer. What’s the simplest explanation for how it works? magic? it was created by a god? look at anything in the world. Is the simplest explanation that all matter is made up of tiny atoms that attract to each other and from molecules? No. But it’s the correct explanation. The simplest solution is the easiest, not the best.

Ralph P: I think I can begin to understand what your saying. are you saying that like truth, right and wrong is sometimes not easy to understand and there are many takes on what is right, but that does not mean that it does not exist.

I think my problem is that I don’t see right or wrong as these forces that exist somewhere beyond humanity. I don’t think that right and wrong were born with universe. I think they are rules that we have created as social beings as a guideline for how to interact with one another.

Lets all simplify our arguments because I feel like we don’t have much of a guide to this discussion.

Lets do this : STATE YOUR DEFINITION OF “RIGHT”. AFTER YOU HAVE DONE SO WE WILL ALL GIVE SITUATIONS FOR YOU TO TEST YOUR DEFINITION.

example: right is always giving to others.
retort: 1) what if to give to others you must take away from someone else? 2) is giving to say, hitler, right?

So far this is what we’ve got:

My definition of right: There is no ultimate right. The concept itself was invented to simplify situations into categories, when in reality things cannot be sorted into categories that extreme. Things are as they are, and while some solutions may seem “morally justified” or “what they had coming” or “more preferable” or “safer” or “the more kind thing to do”, There is no great decider saying in the end what is right and wrong.

my take on Ralph P’s definition of right: While right is difficult to define, and certainly unclear in many cases, ultimate right and wrong exist in the same sense that ultimate truth exists.

my take on rezzerektion’s definition of right: Right is what I say is right. (sorry, I just really don’t have a clear cut answer from you yet)
I think you say that right is acting unselfishly or something along those lines.

please make changes to your definition and state where I am incorrect with my assumptions of your views.
And lets keep it civil guys.