A couple novice thoughts

SolarNexus

what follows is a couple of my thoughts on philosophical and perhaps theological topics, but being a novice I ask that you endulge me for a moment:

right and wrong do not exist, the concept of right and wrong parallel's that of positive or negative. To choose one over the other is no more 'correct' than to favour one side of your body than the other. In nature there is no right or wrong, there is one what is, there is nuetrality -- there is harmony. Could it be that the only way to attain a 'perfect existence' is to discard these outdated concepts and strive for ultimate neutrality? (ok, this is extremely cut down of my concept, but I hope you get the idea)

If man was created by God with the intent to create a perfect being of his image, and thusly he failed to do so, can we not presume that God himself is by definition imperfect?

If man fell from grace by eating of the tree of knowlege, does that mean that God intends us all to be ignorant animals? but this cannot be so, for in the bible he asks, even demands that 'his people' question their God, that they learn from the interaction, perhaps God wishes us to become perfect by the learning of wisdom?

okay, I've got a lot more, but its hard to describe the concepts without missing something vital; I'll see if I can describe it later, some complex subjects I think.

RagShagBill

right and wrong do not exist, the concept of right and wrong parallel's that of positive or negative. To choose one over the other is no more 'correct' than to favour one side of your body than the other. In nature there is no right or wrong, there is one what is, there is nuetrality -- there is harmony. Could it be that the only way to attain a 'perfect existence' is to discard these outdated concepts and strive for ultimate neutrality? (ok, this is extremely cut down of my concept, but I hope you get the idea)

No, because to do so would involve fundamental human rights being taken from people. I don't agree with complete moral relativism.

DadaKopf

So you believe in some moral relativism?

dudara

right and wrong do not exist

I would have to disagree and say that they do. Perform an action and look at it's effects. If it hurts a person, or society, or you yourself, then it is wrong. Somehow this has nothing to do with morality, it's a matter of performing an experiment and observing the outcome, and then deducing a result.

DadaKopf

Put it this way: if there weren't any humans, would right and wrong exist?

SolarNexus

the way I put right and wrong is that they are constructs of societies acceptable policies.

I mean to propose that actions have neither a right or wrong 'attribute', it merely is and the rsult of which also has neither a right or wrong 'attribute' it merely is what it is. Essentially, I am suggesting that the concept of right and wrong is no more than an abstract construct by society to build a framework of rules and regulations upon.

think of it this way: if I kill an animal for food, is it right or wrong? As the animal, I would consider the action wrongful as I have as much right to live as he who kills me; On the other side of the coin, as a human I have as much right to live as the animal and thusly to live I must kill that animal to do so.

What I'm trying to say here is that we as humans embue the concept of right or wrong into actions. We do as such to limit ourselves, to prevent ourselves from doing what should not be done, by marking it as "wrongful".

frodi

Right and wrong are not absolutes. It depends on your point of view.
Lion eats antelope, right from lions view , wrong from antelopes.
It is not so much right & wrong but actions and consquences.

seperate aside, if it is wrong to eat animals why did evolution make them so tasty?

SolarNexus

thats precisely my thoughts, right and wrong are relative, thusly pure right and wrong do not exist.

DadaKopf

I am suggesting that the concept of right and wrong is no more than an abstract construct by society to build a framework of rules and regulations upon.

Foucault would call this a 'regime of truth'.

Derrida would reject the binary right/wrong opposition, arguing instead that is merely a function of language situated within a context of intersubjectivity and power.

These viewpoints would be 'anti-foundationalist', anti-essentialist, postmodern.

Wittgenstein, in a different way, argued that things like good and evil are purely linguistic problems, not real problems. His approach was, unlike those before him, to dissolve such problems rather than solving them. To show that they are essentially unresolvable. In his later phase, 'truth' for Wittgenstein depended on the coherence of logically similar concepts, not any essential meaning.

The continental philosophical turn emerged out of phenomenology and structuralism, both of which attempted to access the world's essential meaning. It aimed to capture the truth of objects as they entered the human consciousness. So you go through a methodology to intuit, say, the 'tableness' of a table. Successive critiques of phenomenology began to break down as it relied so much on interpretation. Bit by bit, phenomology broke down into relativism.

Dades

SolarNexus wrote:

thats precisely my thoughts, right and wrong are relative, thusly pure right and wrong do not exist.

Exist as what? Right and Wrong are just words. Like luck, or taste, to to put into language something intangible that we experience. And like everything the experience is dependent on your point of view.

Uh, so I think I agree.

DadaKopf

disillusioned lefty wrote:

No, because to do so would involve fundamental human rights being taken from people. I don't agree with complete moral relativism.

See, I think the point is to locate the source of these 'fundamental' - i.e. essential/foundational - rights.

Seems to me the notion of 'natural rights' was a Western invention with very specific historical causes. Similar, but by no means identical efforts were made in the non-West to establish codes for living the good life, but, to me, the establishment of Universal Human Rights through a very taught negotiation period shows how, while there may not be any essential meaning to existence, we can still make it ourselves.

On the other hand, John Rawls thinks this only proves the fact that there is a universal, innate, necessary form of Justice, because if we all sat in a room, forgetting everything about who we are, and tried to come up with the best system of living, we'd come up with exactly the same things. Sort of.

I don't buy it.

Playboy

Yes he called it the original position if i remember correctly .. I have to say even though there are some problems with the theory I do agree we would come to agreement on a lot of issues since we would all be driven by a desire to protect our own self interest thus making it quite a fair society

DadaKopf

I disagree. Rawls's idea privileges a Liberal conception over others. Many, many solutions exist that rest on similar, but substantially different values and principles, means and ends and the relationship between those.

Jack137

SolarNexus wrote:

If man was created by God with the intent to create a perfect being of his image, and thusly he failed to do so, can we not presume that God himself is by definition imperfect?

What do you mean when you say humans are imperfect? I'm not trying to go down the road that we can never define perfection or anything, just wondering what you would consider man's imperfections.

SolarNexus

going by christianity:

man was created in the image of God, to be a reflection of the almighty. However, man who was tempted by Satan, ate of the tree of knowlege which was forbidden, in doing so fell out of God's favour and proved to be imperfect. Man did not do as the creator had intended, therefore man or creator are imperfect, arguably one leads to the other, either way one of which is imperfect at the least.

moreover, given all the sins of man required that God give his only begotten son to rid us of our sins, this alone suggests that man is imperfect.

I wholly acknowlege this issue is only of christian faith, but nonetheless some interesting points of thought. I think.

pH

moreover, given all the sins of man required that God give his only begotten son to rid us of our sins, this alone suggests that man is imperfect.

A strange conclusion to draw.

First of all how can anything be 'required' of a supreme being. This is implying that an all powerful God is somehow limited in options/choices. There are somethings that even God can't do, but can if 'He' makes some form of sacrifice.

Secondly what did God give up? Even if we don't get into the trinity stuff, given that Jesus was resurrected was anything lost? Given the belief in the 2nd coming we're not even told that the ability to create a 'Son of God' is a one time deal - He can do it again!

Then we're into the Sin thing, the only way to rid mankind of sin is to kill (sort of) a part of himself? Why? Says who? God? Isn't this back to the old 'can God create a rock that even He can't lift?' paradoxes?

How any of this suggests that we are imperfect is not clear to me!

SolarNexus

I meant more that the mere fact that God had to resort to creating a son to clear us of sins, wheras if we were as directed, we would not have any sins to begin with.

Oh, btw if your going by christianity you have to assume God is male or "he", there is no other option given by the bible. Whether the bible is wholly truthful in its accuracy, thats another story all-together.

Sapien

SolarNexus wrote:

I meant more that the mere fact that God had to resort to creating a son to clear us of sins, wheras if we were as directed, we would not have any sins to begin with.

Oh, btw if your going by christianity you have to assume God is male or "he", there is no other option given by the bible. Whether the bible is wholly truthful in its accuracy, thats another story all-together.

I fail to see why any of your original questions, aside from that relating to moral absolutes, has been posed to the Philosophy forum instead of the Christianity forum over yonder.

Few serious non-theological philosophers are wont to expend mental juices in contemplation of the internal theogonic wranglings of a conceptual construct, the premises of which they have little respect for. And if they do wish to treat with you on the topic, they shouldn't be doing it here.

SolarNexus

"A couple novice thoughts"

simu

Well, the thing is that you can't expect people on here to constrain themselves with Christian doctrine, SolarNexus, so when it comes to questions that fall under this (original sin and so on), you'd be better off asking in the Christianity forum.

I'll leave the thread here for now though as some of your questions are relevant to this forum.

simu
(philo mod)

Playboy

DadaKopf wrote:

I disagree. Rawls's idea privileges a Liberal conception over others. Many, many solutions exist that rest on similar, but substantially different values and principles, means and ends and the relationship between those.

Ok we all exist in a place where we have no idea of our past or our future and we have to come to an agreement on the laws and such of the society we are going to live in. Would it not be logical to assume that we would all drive for the most equal society possible so as to ensure the protection of a decent standard of living for ourselves? The idea of people agreeing on a concept of an unequal society to me sounds quite ridiculous. Why would you risk your future when you do not know into what position in society you are going to live?

Sifo

right and wrong are both equally important you cannot learn one without the other, you must experience both. however what you beleive to be right others may perceive to be wrong, this depends on your beliefs which ironically can cause more wrong than anything else... if that makes sense!!

Sand

Put it this way: if there weren't any humans, would right and wrong exist?

If the concepts of right and wrong did not exist, would any recognisable humans exist, as anything more than animals who act on instinct? One cant exist without the other.

Animals dont consider whether it is proper to hunt and tear an animal apart. Humans do. Its our defining characteristic.

right and wrong do not exist, the concept of right and wrong parallel's that of positive or negative. To choose one over the other is no more 'correct' than to favour one side of your body than the other. In nature there is no right or wrong, there is one what is, there is nuetrality -- there is harmony. Could it be that the only way to attain a 'perfect existence' is to discard these outdated concepts and strive for ultimate neutrality? (ok, this is extremely cut down of my concept, but I hope you get the idea)

Moral relativism should be a thought crime tbh. And you cant complain, because if It was a thought crime it wouldnt be right or wrong, would it?

bonkey

If one believed that the concepts of right and wrong did not exist, how could they possibly suggest that the right thing to do would be to follow a specific course.

If there is no right and wrong, then there can be no right nor wrong paths to follow.

So why would someone who believed that there was no right and wrong want humanity to strive towards ultimate neutrality, as it can be no more right a place for humanity to be than any other.

DadaKopf

Since this is a philosophy forum, it's worth talking in terms of 'goodness in itself' and 'badness in itself' - i.e. a self-positing, essentialist account of the universe - as distinct from anti-essentialist accounts.

It's easy for a relativist - let's say postmodernist, or anti-essentialist - to say that something is right or wrong because he/she has, as a member of an intersubjective community, judged that an action has effects which cannot be justified on the basis of the coherent structure, the values, of that particular intersubjective community. But while the relativist will call that action wrong, he/she will equally be open to the idea that others may view that action as right.

This happens all the time and, with a few axiomatic exceptions, political liberalism - the cultural world we live in - agrees. All moral judgements in a pluralist society must be merely viewed as subjective preferences with the exception of those which interfere with the objective conditions of human freedom. So, pluralism asserts that natural rights are essentially good, and whatever interferes with those bad, but all other moral judgements are subjective preferences.

But what when two people's preferences are completely irreconcilable, but do not interfere with the primary conditions of freedom, but one cannot judge which are morally superior? Surely it comes down to the moral coherence of people's arguments?

Or, the power of one person to impose his/her will on another and justifying the morality of that action afterwards?

Shellie13

RagShagBill wrote:

No, because to do so would involve fundamental human rights being taken from people. I don't agree with complete moral relativism.

I think we need morals for our society to function but there are no absolutes. We create morals ourselves, culture dependant. Without people I do not see how morals can exist-they are not noticibly present in the animal community to my knowledge!

DadaKopf

I'll just add that we create our own morals, importantly, but based on and limited by - defined by - our concrete existence.