Definition of "Wrong"

[bearly]

a couple of remarks: the op couldn't have been fully concious and have written that post--that is, if he thought it made sense. now, what is w/ this 'wrong' stuff. are the high priests at 2+2 (the 'talent', so to speak) unaware of terms such as 'immoral', 'unethical', 'illegal', or if we must include the fringes 'pathological'? gee, i am stupified by all of this.....b

[SheetWise]

I'm interested to see if after defining "wrong", the discerning reader can infer the meaning of "right". Maybe later we can all agree on the meaning of "fun".

[psycho7]

[ QUOTE ]
From this point further when I ask if someone is wrong to do something or omit doing something to or for another, I mean this: "what would your answer be if you were the injured party? You were the poverty stricken African. You were the spouse who was cheated on. etc. etc. If putting yourself in that place, you would still agree that the person who didn't give you five dollars for medicine or the spouse who kept secrets from you did nothing "wrong" (as opposed to something you merely wish he had done differently) then I will accept your statement that it was not wrong to do it or omit doing it. But I believe that is the key test.

[/ QUOTE ]

suppose that i do not donate to poor african children, and that if i was one of the poor african children i would consider it wrong for better-off people (such as me, in actuality) to not donate to poor african children.

thus, you would say that i act wrongly by omitting to donate to poor african children, right?

if yes, why? why ought i act in accordance with this principle, as opposed to some other principle such as "one ought to always choose the action that furthers his individual well-being?"

is this just a subjective principle by which you attempt to live, or are you claiming that this principle applies to all humans?

[fearless]

its "wrong" to play a game of "complete information" vs a game of "incomplete information".

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
its "wrong" to play a game of "complete information" vs a game of "incomplete information".

[/ QUOTE ]

you dug a year-old thread out for that?

[Zeno]

From the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Fifth edition, p. 3684.

Wrong- Adjective

3. of an action etc.: deviating from equity, justice, or goodness: not morally correct; unjust.

4. Of a person: deviating from integrity, rectitude, or probity; of bad character; doing or disposed to do wrong.

5 a Not conforming to some standard, rule, convention, or princple; contray to what is approved or proper.


And just for fun--


From the Oxford Thesaurus of English, Second Edition, p. 1055:

Wrong - Adjective 1 there were no right or wrong answers / incorrect, mistaken, in error, erroneous, inaccurate, not accurate, inexact, not exact, imprecise, invalid, unture, false, fallacious, wide of the mark, off target; misleading, illogical, unsound, unfounded, without foundation, faulty, flawed.

^

[Propertarian]

This seems to may to be a refinement of the classic and, in my view, correct theory that what is unethical is what would be considered unethical by a truly impartial party e.g. Rawls 'veil of ignorance' or Bentham's 'impartial spectator' or 'the point of view of the universe'.

I like it. It allows us a way of approximating and hence possibly implementing these ideals somewhat in our daily lives simply. I don't think your definition of wrong is correct but it may be the best we can hope for in practice, at least for many people.

[Propertarian]

Why? Because the principle 'one ought to always choose the action that furthers his individual well-being' presupposes that you are more valuable than African children, which is false. Sklansky's idea avoids this false assumption, making it a better guide for human action.

[Propertarian]

If you just use different words it wouldn't be circular logic. e.g. if I was the other person in this situation, would I think the other person had an obligation to do or not do X or Y.

[Piers]

So you are saying that it’s ok to murder someone, if you would expect the individual to try to do the same to you if the position ware reversed?

Criminal acts are fine for some people but not for others depending on the individual’s acceptance of having thoes same crimes committed to themselves if the position were reversed.

I am not saying its is not a consistent philosophy, I just it does not think it fits with what most believe; and its one hell of a thing to police.