What is Right and Wrong?

[jackfaire]

A question primarily for those who do not believe in an afterlife who feel that this is all there is.

What gives you your sense of right and wrong and why follow it?

If there is no afterlife then certainly beyond societal there would be no true consequences on your actions.

What keeps you from doing as you please with no regards to others?

[Lachrymose]

First, let me say that religion was born of morals and not the other way around.

I think that morals are ingrained in us. Because we are social animals, we know what is right (that which will help society progress, or at least remain neutral) and what is wrong (that which will harm society).

I'm not saying that morals are instinct necessarily, because according to one's culture, they can be different. However, I still think that they are geared towards benefiting society as a whole.

One example that I've read is regarding the Aleutians. If a child is holding back the whole group, they will not hesitate to sacrifice it (I'm not 100% positive on this as it's been a while since I've read it). That's something we view as horrible and inhumane.

Also I have very strong feelings about religion and morals.

Let me just say if the only thing keeping (general) you from killing other people is because it's in a book or because you're trying to get to heaven, then that truly disgusts and frightens me.

[jackfaire]

Well for example someone who does not believe in an afterlife but believes that vegetarianism is morally right even though we are omnivorous and according to them like animals we live we die nothing else.

[Lachrymose]

Oops..I missed the "beyond societal" part.

Well, as far as vegetarianism (did you mean morally right and not wrong? I'm assuming you meant right)...some people just include other animals in the whole "society" thing...

[jackfaire]

Oops..I missed the "beyond societal" part.

Well, as far as vegetarianism (did you mean morally right and not wrong? I'm assuming you meant right)...some people just include other animals in the whole "society" thing...

Thank you. I corrected it.

[Slytovhand]

Let me just say if the only thing keeping (general) you from killing other people is because it's in a book or because you're trying to get to heaven, then that truly disgusts and frightens me.

Does that include law books?

[Lachrymose]

In the case of murder, I'd say yes.

[ladyneeva]

As was said above... if the only thing keeping someone from committing harmful acts upon others is because they want to go to heaven or they read it in a book... they have problems.

The problem isn't defining right/wrong, moral/immoral, sin/not sin. There are some actions which, outside of a few exceptions, most mentally healthy individuals in most cultures just know are wrong. They don't need a book or threats of eternal damnation to know that doing them is not a good thing. Murder, rape, theft, torture, etc.

The problem comes when a subset of a culture decides, for whatever reason, to assign moral values to acts which are inherently morally neutral to people outside their particular subset... and then try to force, coerce, or shame people outside their subset into living by the rules of morality that they created.

If an action does not unnecessarily harm others, then it is morally neutral. You are free to assign a moral value to it for your own self, if you desire, but you should not expect anyone else to view that action through your moral compass.

[jackfaire]

Actually Murder is contextually right or wrong in cultures.

Self defense, it's right.

War it's right.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually Murder is contextually right or wrong in cultures.

Self defense, it's right.

War it's right.

Only under the assumption that murder is synonymous with the killing of another human being, which it technically isn't. Especially since warfare operates (in those instances where there is any) under completely different laws, and self-defense is generally seen as the result of the situation (An attacker basically forfeits their right to live and/or remain uninjured when they make the decision to kill/injure another person and act on it.)

Every culture prohibits unlawful killing, and likewise has circumstances for lawful killing.

[jackfaire]

Fine killing another human being is contextually right and wrong.

[ladyneeva]

There are some actions which, outside of a few exceptions, most mentally healthy individuals in most cultures just know are wrong.

Note the highlighted part -- I did specify that there are exceptions to every rule. In general murder is considered wrong in every culture, but the exceptions to that would be self defense, war, death penalty. Some cultures and religions forbid killing but encourage killing 'unbelievers' or foreigners.

Like I said, exceptions.

But, from a moral standpoint, pretty much every culture on earth would agree that killing a complete stranger, without provocation, just to watch them die is wrong.

[jackfaire]

, just to watch them die is wrong.

Just to watch them die yes but many cultures will kill someone for the mere fact that the person is different and do not think anything wrong of it.

[ladyneeva]

That is getting into the definition of what murder is, not whether it is right or wrong. Humans as a whole have an amazing ability to turn on and off their sense of empathy to justify whatever action they want to take. On the whole, humans as a species are actually incredibly hateful creatures -- just watch kids at play.

Or consider that out of the entire concept of morality, there are really only a handful of things that nearly everyone from nearly every walk of life within a culture can agree on. Everything else is just one group trying to make every other group walk to their drummer.