objective and universal right and wrong
0
littleRED wrote...
I still don't get why you have to be offensive. Stating that someone is lacking the intelligence and knowledge to understand what someone else has written or said is quite the assumption.I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm saying that you're using too many big words and that there is no use to try and flaunt your dictionary, keep it simple so that people understand what you're saying instead.
littleRED wrote...
You just had to ask me. Simple as that.I'd say that it's hard for us regular mortals to define between your opinions and what you've taken from Wikipedia. It is, when you're not providing sources.
littleRED wrote...
My own point on view is based on the experiences I had in my life, which shaped me into someone, who always tries to stay as objective as possible about anything. Of course I am only human and therefore don't succeed always in that quest, but I am doing my best.That means that I do think that there is something like an objective although not universal right and wrong. That is why I like the example of killing so much:
Killing for food to preserve life is right.
Killing for food, but more than it is needed, is wrong.
Killing by accident in (self) defense is right.
Killing in (self) defense, although there were CLEARLY other possibilities, is wrong.
And so on ...
So my personal opinion is that there is no universal principle that applies to all kinds of different situations and cases, but a right and wrong can be determined objectively for every single situation independently.
But then, who are you or I to decide what life is more worth than the other, regarding the "Killing for food to preserve life is right." quote? Let's pull a straight over-the top example: Two orphans are fighting over a piece of bread, both of them needs the bread to be able to feed himself and his smaller sibling. One kills the other.
Was this right or wrong? Neither would have survived not killing the other, but the need and reasons for it were the same. How are we to judge this objectively?
0
Chlor wrote...
Let's pull a straight over-the top example: Two orphans are fighting over a piece of bread, both of them needs the bread to be able to feed himself and his smaller sibling. One kills the other.Quite the uncomplete example. Was this the last piece of something eatable in the whole wide world? Was it such a tiny piece of bread that couldn't be shared any cost, so someone had to kill for it? If it were too little to share, than it wouldn't feed more than one person anyway. But then again, such a small piece wouldn't safe even one person from starvation ...
I fail to see why the individual subjective view is the way to go, so I am giving you a counter example, a real life example that I happened to someone close to me:
A guy from Serbia is on trial (in Serbia), because of attempted murder. He tried to kill another guy, who was from the US. Because Serbia was bombed by NATO more than 10 years ago and in the eyes of this Serbian guy, NATO=USA, so everyone in the US deserves to die.
A good friend of mine was the court interpreter during that trial and that Serbian guy tried to attack and kill her in the courtroom, because he assumed she is also from the US. As soon as he realized, that she is not, he calmed immediately down.
So his subjective point of view is that EVERYONE, EVERYONE WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, who is from the US deserves to die. His subjective point of view is that he is 100% right about it.
So do you think that subjectivity is really the way to go?
I don't say that it is always easy to determine an objective right and wrong, but like I said, I fail to see why I should stop trying all together and just stick to my personal subjectivity.
0
littleRED wrote...
Quite the uncomplete example. Was this the last piece of something eatable in the whole wide world? Was it such a tiny piece of bread that couldn't be shared any cost, so someone had to kill for it? If it were too little to share, than it wouldn't feed more than one person anyway. But then again, such a small piece wouldn't safe even one person from starvation ...
Enough to share in two, for the siblings. Not enough for 4, or even 3. What depended on this was the need to a night without food, and not knowing when the next one will come.
littleRED wrote...
I fail to see why the individual subjective view is the way to go, so I am giving you a counter example, a real life example that I happened to someone close to me:
A guy from Serbia is on trial (in Serbia), because of attempted murder. He tried to kill another guy, who was from the US. Because Serbia was bombed by NATO more than 10 years ago and in the eyes of this Serbian guy, NATO=USA, so everyone in the US deserves to die.
A good friend of mine was the court interpreter during that trial and that Serbian guy tried to attack and kill her in the courtroom, because he assumed she is also from the US. As soon as he realized, that she is not, he calmed immediately down.
So his subjective point of view is that EVERYONE, EVERYONE WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, who is from the US deserves to die. His subjective point of view is that he is 100% right about it.
So do you think that subjectivity is really the way to go?
I don't say that it is always easy to determine an objective right and wrong, but like I said, I fail to see why I should stop trying all together and just stick to my personal subjectivity.
The way to go and the way to go, I think that it works subjectively, and can never be objective.
The entire point of it being subjective is that it is not set in stone. This man might have think that every US citizen should die, and who are we to deny him that? We can't even deny him that, the fact that he can think that thought in his head makes the concept of right/wrong, moral/amoral completely subjective.
0
Chlor wrote...
The entire point of it being subjective is that it is not set in stone. This man might have think that every US citizen should die, and who are we to deny him that? We can't even deny him that, the fact that he can think that thought in his head makes the concept of right/wrong, moral/amoral completely subjective.Does that mean that a human being is incapable of reaching an objective conclusion?
0
littleRED wrote...
Chlor wrote...
The entire point of it being subjective is that it is not set in stone. This man might have think that every US citizen should die, and who are we to deny him that? We can't even deny him that, the fact that he can think that thought in his head makes the concept of right/wrong, moral/amoral completely subjective.Does that mean that a human being is incapable of reaching an objective conclusion?
Absolutely, 100% objectivity would be impossible in all subjective matters, that being most things.
This is at least what I think about it.