Definition of "Wrong"

David Sklansky · #1 10-16-2005, 04:10 PM

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.

RJT · #2 10-16-2005, 04:40 PM

These questions seem to echo Dawkins’ view of if something causes unnecessary pain or suffering. I really don’t know what he means by that and who is the determiner of such. And why is it of such import to him? Why is that the line in the sand that he seems to draw?

Is there further explanation of this philosophy or is that just it - an arbitrary line drawn somewhere by the person drawing the line?

mosquito · #3 10-16-2005, 07:39 PM

[ 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 ]

Gee, looking thru another's eyes. How novel an approach to ethics.

Peter666 · #4 10-16-2005, 09:39 PM

This definition of "wrong" obviously leads to subjective errors in reasoning.

What makes something right or wrong is dependant on its relation to our final end. We are rational creatures living in a society. Any discussion of right or wrong without acknowledging the common good deriving from the above fact is meaningless.

Cyrus · #5 10-17-2005, 03:45 AM

[ 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?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but that's just ..wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The theoretical example of a person held hostage by Chechnyan terrorists who demand refuge to a Moscow housing building is refutation enough: The demand is refused; the person is killed; the terrorists do not get access inside the building and more than one life is spared, most probably.

From the "injured party's" perspective, the action was morally wrong.

NotReady · #6 10-17-2005, 04:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]

when I ask if someone is wrong to do something or omit doing something to or for another, I mean this:

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you get to make the definition?

purnell · #7 10-17-2005, 04:34 AM

"Wrong", then, is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we can't describe AM empirically. The results can't be replicated. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

We all go through life trying to maximize our happiness. In the case of the found wallet, some people are smart and rich enough to think about the other guy, and return the wallet and money, and some aren't. If a homeless guy found my wallet and didn't return it, I don't think I could really blame him. He can't see past his need.

In order to commit adultery one has to break an explicit promise, so it seems different to me.

BluffTHIS! · #8 10-17-2005, 07:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you get to make the definition?

[/ QUOTE ]

As the founder and high priest of Sklanskyanity, he gets to define the doctrines. And he hasn't necessarily given us a complete revelation/definition yet.

txag007 · #9 10-17-2005, 08:42 AM

Defining "wrong" as "if it happened to me, would I consider it wrong?" is circular logic. "Wrong" is being defined in terms of "wrong". This implies some standard of "bad" beyond the individual by which one can tell what is good and what is evil in human nature.

SheetWise · #10 10-17-2005, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I mean this: "what would your answer be if you were the injured party?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's loaded.
We're trying to determine if someone is wrong to do something to another -- and the other is already being characterized as a victim?