What makes something right or wrong?

[hmkpoker]

I've noticed a lot of the questions posed in this forum ask whether something is right or wrong. While I find a lot of these questions to be very interesting, I'm often at a loss of words for argument, since my perception of "right" may be different from someone else's, and therefore would need to be clarified beforehand.

I percieve these notions of right and wrong to be relative to a particular goal, and servient to a particular subject (hence why there is so much disagreement). The most common subjects that I see are as follows, and the question of "would it be right to let a hundred strangers die to ensure my survival?" is applied to each.

1. THE INDIVIDUAL SELF. The subject is the person himself, and codes of right and wrong are made relative to the self's preservation and well-being. In this case, it is detrimental to the individual self to die for people whose losses would not affect him otherwise, so it is RIGHT to let a hundred strangers die for my own survival.

2. THE WHOLE OF MANKIND. Decisions are made on the basis of "what is best for humanity on the whole." A decision should be made on the basis of the number of people that will benefit from it. In our example, it is WRONG to let a hundred strangers die to ensure my survival, because the alternative choice would harm more people.

3. GOD. Religious dogma dictates that actions be made with the best interests of a divine being in mind. The argument as to whether it's right to kill a hundred strangers depends entirely on the will of said divine being, and must be interpretted accordingly.

4. A PEOPLE OR NATION. Actions are made servient to a select group of people, be they characterised by color, creed, ethnicity or whatever. Let's assume the subject is America and the American people. In this case, I guess one could argue either way. I would argue that it is WRONG to kill 100 people to ensure my survival, because in the absence of other information, we are led to conclude that these people could exist anywhere on earth. Let's say America comprises about 5% of the world's population. We can expect 5 Americans to die for me, which would be more detrimental to America than the alternative of my death. However, it would arguably be RIGHT to let 100 American enemies die to preserve my life.

I feel that the subject around whom we are basing our moral decisions, as well as that subject's goals, need to be clarified before we can logically argue whether it's right or wrong.

The question of "which of these subjects should be our focus" would make an excellent debate.

Thoughts? Comments?

-hmk

[Darryl_P]

That's a very good summary IMO and the sign of a sharp, objective thinker.

Possibly you left out one group -- the immediate family -- but I agree 100% with your point and I'm frankly surprised at how many otherwise very intelligent people just assume others have the same values regarding the above and just trudge along in their little comfortable niche without questioning any of it, or at least not directly.

The indirect way to question the above is to talk politics. Rather than take stabs at the core of each other's being, people just debate an issue from which their core values are derived, but minus the emotional stress that would come from a direct approach.

So in a way you could say political debating is in essence what you're describing but with much of the info. being passed on between the lines.

I'd say a typical hardline conservative values God highest, then himself and immediate family, followed by his nation or race, with the rest of the world being worth pretty much zero or even negative, especially when there are possible threats to the nation.

A typical leftist OTOH values himself and immediate family highly, but that's where the similarities end. The human race comes next and his nation is only a minor consideration and can even count as a negative if it appears to be harming humanity. They vary on the issue of God but I think it's safe to say more atheists are leftist than conservative.

That's my 2c attempt to be objective on the issue anyway.

[hmkpoker]

Duly noted. Immediate family is a big one.

[ QUOTE ]
2. THE WHOLE OF MANKIND. Decisions are made on the basis of "what is best for humanity on the whole." A decision should be made on the basis of the number of people that will benefit from it. In our example, it is WRONG to let a hundred strangers die to ensure my survival, because the alternative choice would harm more people.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I do agree with you pointing out Utilitarianism, I disagree with the conclusion that you drew from the example that you gave. I've always greatly questioned the value that countries put on human lives. It seems that, without the presence of better information, every human life has an "average" quality associated with it. The powers that be find it to be of utmost importance to increase the overall quality of mankind's existence by keeping as many humans alive as possible, without regard for the actual nature of the humans in question. There is always debate in what is best for mankind. 100 senseless serial killers, or me, who will discover the cure for a dangerous disease... hm actually, in retrospect, I don't think there's any way to deviate from the idea that every life is worth a certain amount.

[Hoi Polloi]

Right and wrong are judgments. Given some honest thought you should be able to determine the premises upon which your judgment is made. By definition, your premises are neither true nor false. They are your values.

[hmkpoker]

Unfortunately, having different values disrupts a logical argument. For example, if David Sklansky, who has the best intrests of humanity in mind, tells me, who has only my best interests in mind, that killing 100 random people to ensure my own survival is wrong, and I tell him it's right...then we've just gone into a pissing contest, and are left to just acknowledge that we have different values.

The argument then terminates.

My point was that, prior to debating whether something is right or wrong, we need to establish the basis of our morality. Otherwise, we just have pointless conversations.

[PLOlover]

It's like EV. The more +EV decisions you make, the more likely you are to win.

The more good or right choices you make in your life, the more likely you are to survive and flourish, as an individual and as a member of society.

True there is some tension between individuals and society, the same way there is a fight over resources between a mother and unborn child.

And of course different societies or peoples are pitted against another, etc.

Sure your decisions are +EV, but are they good?

[txag007]

"My point was that, prior to debating whether something is right or wrong, we need to establish the basis of our morality. Otherwise, we just have pointless conversations."

Exactly. The basis of our morality has to come from God. Otherwise, we wouldn't all agree on what is right and wrong. And we generally do.

Here is what is wrong with getting the basis of morality from other sources:

The Individual Self: This implies that something can be right even if it is cruel, hateful, or tyrannical. Aside from the fact that everyone generally agrees these kinds of things are wrong, chaos would result if we lived this way.

The Whole of Mankind: Basically, utilitarianism. The greatest good for the greatest number. But what defines "good". If the "whole" decides what is best for the "part", how do we know what the "whole" decides is "right" unless it comes from an outsided source. Communities like Jonestown have committed mass suicide, and it is generally accepted that that isn't "right".

[hmkpoker]

Unfortunately we can't all agree on the God thing.

I also would disagree with tyranny and narcissism as being necessarily in the best interest of an individual; one might argue that altruism is within one's best interest (to some extent), simply for the fact that it can make you feel good.