Can morals be...

Are morals either right or wrong?

  • Yes
  • No, they are both right and wrong, at the same time, in the same respect
  • No, they are both right and wrong, at the same time, in a different respect
  • No, they are neither right nor wrong, for they do not exist.
0 voters

Can morals be right and wrong at the same time in the same respect?

I’ve run into someone that said I’m being subjective because I said that they can only be one way or the other, right or wrong. I personally think they didn’t know what I was getting at, but still, I think this needs to be addressed. If you think this does not need to be address please do not respond.

My view is that either an act is right or wrong or it is non-existent. Is there anything else? Please give your full work in simple proof format:


Premise:

.
.
.
x)
.
.
.

Conlusions:

Therefore 1) + 2) = [x+1])

[x+2])

[x+3])
.
.
.

-the Brain.

im not understaning answer 1.

“Are morals either right or wrong?”

Yes… what did that answer?

bored and just being picky here :wink:

I think you forgot one thing. I would say that an act is either right, wrong, neutral, or non-existent.

A right act is one which will in all probability will produce a net gain for the well-being of humanity. A wrong act is one which in all probability will produce a net loss for the well-being of humanity.

A nuetral act will in all probability produce no net change in the well-being of humanity.

[contented edited by ILP]

  1. If God exists, we can’t prove it.
    1a. Many people assert that God does not exist and behave in a universalizeable fashion elsewhere in their lives.
    1b. Therefore anything that it is claimed stems from God is moot as a law or injunction, and valuable only in the abstract.

  2. Human beings make laws, customs, morals, etc.
    2a. There is no objective judge - different people have different versions of what is “right.”
    2b. Therefore it cannot be known what laws, customs, morals, etc. are “the right ones.”

3(1b+2b). No human being is qualified to judge another human being’s actions on an individual basis.

  1. Pragmatic considerations dictate that human beings give themselves laws to live by; otherwise society is impossible.
    4a. These laws have the force of man-made rules, i.e. conventions, and can in principle at any time be judged mistaken. They are not revealed wisdom or objective morality.

5(1b+2b+3+4a). No human being has ever seen, heard, invented, known, or gestalted from the seas, any example of a morally right or morally wrong proposition, belief, rule, or action.
5a. Nobody would be able to detect such a thing if they came across it, nor give rules as to its recognition.

  1. Therefore, metaphysical considerations of “right” and “wrong” are semantic spooks that have no place in the intellectually honest mind.

Postscript: I myself am currently enamored of a basically aesthetic model - my classifications of “a good idea” and “a bad idea” correspond roughly to “that which causes liberty and beauty” and “that which causes tyranny and ugliness,” repectively. I make no claims to have objectivity on my side, and I hope no person would ever mistake my personal judgements for truth. All I’ve done here is demonstrate that claims of morality are irrevocably incorrect.

QED

If you knew that he was about to give plutonium to Al Qaeda, then as far as you could tell, your act would probably be to the benefit of humanity, and therefore right. If you didn’t know this, then as far as you could tell your act would probably not be to the benefit of humanity, and therefore wrong.

First, I don’t necessarily think that happiness is the goal. Second, nothing is objective. There is no objective way to assess whether my hand exists. Something can only be objective assuming certain premeses.

a. If the person who steals is starving and steals bread from someone who has plenty of food, yes. There are many situations in which it is harder to judge than this, but I think it is possible to make a good estimate. If it is really unclear, than such an action is just neutral. I don’t mean to say that people can’t resonably disagree on what is worth more, but there can be constructive debate.

b. There is one serial killer who is only superficially happy when he kills. There are many people who die, which is bad in itself, and many relatives who are extremely sad as well.

c. Yes.

That is why we use probability. What is the probability that this action will produce good effects?