The Difference Between Right & Wrong

the world seems to be moving more towards a self-dictated scale of wrong and right that relies on personal preference more then a longstanding, underlying code. is there wrong and right anymore? do the definitions change depending on our preference or are we in a mass state of delusion? what is beyond human belief and human tradition? is there a universal definition which human beings and even the world (the earth) tends to self-invent its way around, to suit personal preference. does the earth and even the universe itself stray from a code which has existed before the dawn of time?

what is 'survival' and 'necessity' translate into anymore in our modern world of excess, overabundance, misguided priorities and gross contrast between have and have nots. is it not more a question of a properly functioning community? do our circumstances write the rules or are there rules which transcend circumstance and hope for us to feel strongly enough about them to put our feelings into action and represent the deepest empathy and love in our hearts?

it would seem that most humans are pushed into immoral behavior by the mass-momentum of the world and its choices and decisions. we are manipulated by our own influence on each other.

are there repercussions for our actions? should we keep using the examples of behaviors and actions in the past, in nature and in the human world to validate our present and future actions?

because something has been done in the world at one point or another, does that make it right? survival of the fittest. the dominator and the dominated. is natures survival code built for man

or is man meant to transcend this archaic, animalistic, instinctual lust and create opportunity for the weak as well as the strong?

what have we been? what have we become as a human race. are we not capable of more?

posting in a troon thread

Yawning in a troon thread.

I saw Louis CK last night. He ended by mentioning a thought process he has been utilizing to analyze his beliefs. He calls it "Of course. But maybe..." in the "Of course." concepts are undeniable moral truths he believes in, but orbiting these moral truths, much like a moon around a planet, are his "But maybe..." thoughts which he finds important to recognize.

For example. "Of course we should protect children with nut allergies: put warning stickers on food, provide separate school lunches, etc." "But maybe...if touching a nut kills you should probably die. I mean, right? One year of not caring could wipe out that from the human gene pool. Maybe. But of course we should protect them." He then applied this to ideas like respecting military personal (of course...but maybe if you volunteer to shoot at people overseas you deserve to be killed), slavery (maybe everything ever made from the Pyramids to the new iPhone was made by people forced to work), etc.

I personally think human society is slowly moving to the "Of course" moral truths. We've got a long fucking way to go though.

If it violates the rights* of others, it's immoral.

If it doesn't, it's not.

Morality necessarily and exclusively pertains to social interactions. If there is one guy stranded on a desert island (and perhaps he's shooting heroin and masturbating to a picture of his sister), then morality doesn't exist.

However, if he's hungry and he's contemplating spearing a boar, then a moral question arises: do we extend these rights to animals? Why or why not?

*meaning the basic right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

lol @ animal rights

I was just thinking about this yesterday

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:32 PM, RandySicko said:

lol @ animal rights

okay whatever

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:32 PM, RandySicko said:

lol @ animal rights

says the shaved gorilla

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:35 PM, Cryptowen said:

 

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:32 PM, RandySicko said:

lol @ animal rights

says the shaved gorilla

 

yeah lol @ thinking there's a difference between us and animals besides selective forces.

So am I out of job now?

who is that fuddy-duddy?

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:15 PM, Redruth said:

the world seems to be moving more towards a self-dictated scale of wrong and right that relies on personal preference more then a longstanding, underlying code. is there wrong and right anymore? do the definitions change depending on our preference or are we in a mass state of delusion? what is beyond human belief and human tradition? is there a universal definition which human beings and even the world (the earth) tends to self-invent its way around, to suit personal preference. does the earth and even the universe itself stray from a code which has existed before the dawn of time?

 

what is 'survival' and 'necessity' translate into anymore in our modern world of excess, overabundance, misguided priorities and gross contrast between have and have nots. is it not more a question of a properly functioning community? do our circumstances write the rules or are there rules which transcend circumstance and hope for us to feel strongly enough about them to put our feelings into action and represent the deepest empathy and love in our hearts?

 

it would seem that most humans are pushed into immoral behavior by the mass-momentum of the world and its choices and decisions. we are manipulated by our own influence on each other.

 

are there repercussions for our actions? should we keep using the examples of behaviors and actions in the past, in nature and in the human world to validate our present and future actions?

because something has been done in the world at one point or another, does that make it right? survival of the fittest. the dominator and the dominated. is natures survival code built for man

or is man meant to transcend this archaic, animalistic, instinctual lust and create opportunity for the weak as well as the strong?

 

what have we been? what have we become as a human race. are we not capable of more?

there are innumerable flawed questions in this.

id have to first ask you what proof you have that there ever was an objective wrong/right.

wait this is a troon thread, fuck me nevermind

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent.

There seems to be a lot of jumping the epistemological gun here, so to speak.

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:58 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:15 PM, Redruth said:

the world seems to be moving more towards a self-dictated scale of wrong and right that relies on personal preference more then a longstanding, underlying code. is there wrong and right anymore? do the definitions change depending on our preference or are we in a mass state of delusion? what is beyond human belief and human tradition? is there a universal definition which human beings and even the world (the earth) tends to self-invent its way around, to suit personal preference. does the earth and even the universe itself stray from a code which has existed before the dawn of time?

 

what is 'survival' and 'necessity' translate into anymore in our modern world of excess, overabundance, misguided priorities and gross contrast between have and have nots. is it not more a question of a properly functioning community? do our circumstances write the rules or are there rules which transcend circumstance and hope for us to feel strongly enough about them to put our feelings into action and represent the deepest empathy and love in our hearts?

 

it would seem that most humans are pushed into immoral behavior by the mass-momentum of the world and its choices and decisions. we are manipulated by our own influence on each other.

 

are there repercussions for our actions? should we keep using the examples of behaviors and actions in the past, in nature and in the human world to validate our present and future actions?

because something has been done in the world at one point or another, does that make it right? survival of the fittest. the dominator and the dominated. is natures survival code built for man

or is man meant to transcend this archaic, animalistic, instinctual lust and create opportunity for the weak as well as the strong?

 

what have we been? what have we become as a human race. are we not capable of more?

 

 

there are innumerable flawed questions in this.

 

id have to first ask you what proof you have that there ever was an objective wrong/right.

 

wait this is a troon thread, fuck me nevermind

 

auschwitz? hiroshima?

  On 12/14/2012 at 8:10 PM, Redruth said:

 

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:58 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 12/14/2012 at 6:15 PM, Redruth said:

the world seems to be moving more towards a self-dictated scale of wrong and right that relies on personal preference more then a longstanding, underlying code. is there wrong and right anymore? do the definitions change depending on our preference or are we in a mass state of delusion? what is beyond human belief and human tradition? is there a universal definition which human beings and even the world (the earth) tends to self-invent its way around, to suit personal preference. does the earth and even the universe itself stray from a code which has existed before the dawn of time?

 

what is 'survival' and 'necessity' translate into anymore in our modern world of excess, overabundance, misguided priorities and gross contrast between have and have nots. is it not more a question of a properly functioning community? do our circumstances write the rules or are there rules which transcend circumstance and hope for us to feel strongly enough about them to put our feelings into action and represent the deepest empathy and love in our hearts?

 

it would seem that most humans are pushed into immoral behavior by the mass-momentum of the world and its choices and decisions. we are manipulated by our own influence on each other.

 

are there repercussions for our actions? should we keep using the examples of behaviors and actions in the past, in nature and in the human world to validate our present and future actions?

because something has been done in the world at one point or another, does that make it right? survival of the fittest. the dominator and the dominated. is natures survival code built for man

or is man meant to transcend this archaic, animalistic, instinctual lust and create opportunity for the weak as well as the strong?

 

what have we been? what have we become as a human race. are we not capable of more?

 

 

there are innumerable flawed questions in this.

 

id have to first ask you what proof you have that there ever was an objective wrong/right.

 

wait this is a troon thread, fuck me nevermind

 

 

auschwitz? hiroshima?

 

Just because those were horrible doesn't mean there is some objective blueprint for morality.

the whole objective / subjective debate is a distraction, don't fall for it limpy

  On 12/14/2012 at 8:22 PM, Redruth said:

the whole objective / subjective debate is a distraction, don't fall for it limpy

sorry for dumb meme, but I will never ever tire of it

or this

yea, it's all about how something makes you feel limpy, in your heart parts. if we feel sad then it's bad. then there are some people who have less of a capacity to 'feel' in their hearts parts and those of us

with more of an advanced capacity need to help them love more. sounds simple right? not so simple. the concept is simple but the task of love is complex in its application. love is very contingent

on wrong and right

you must be so boring in real life

quite the opposite

I thought it'd been a while since Troon Trooned.

  On 12/14/2012 at 8:22 PM, Redruth said:

the whole objective / subjective debate is a distraction, don't fall for it limpy

This is the real trap. There was never a right and wrong.

*plants feet firmly in relativism*