Right & Wrong

[Dravin]

For the recored, I'm in agreement with morality being objective as defined by that which is pleasing or unpleasing to God. It's just Apple hasn't limited right and wrong to morality, it still includes getting the wrong burger.

[applepansy]

Dravin, I haven't been including the burgers on purpose.

Personally, I do believe that truth, or good and evil, is defined by our Heavenly Father. I'm sorry I'm unable to explain the core of what I was trying to ask about.

I do feel I have come to my own conclusion which was what I was searching for. The question popped into my head several weeks ago and it wouldn't go away. I've found that when a question like this comes to my mind and won't go away its my Heavenly Father prompting me to learn more about something. All the posts and other discussions I've had on this subject have truly helped clarify my thoughts and answer the question for myself, which is:

Basic right and wrong, or good and evil (if it helps, moral choice) is Objective. The concept, as taught by God in the scriptures, doesn't change. The commandments teach us how to apply the Objective principle in our lives when exercising our agency.

The application of this principle in our lives is when it becomes Subjective...such as choosing between a Big Mac or a Big N Tasty. :)

Thank you everyone for helping me think this through.

[Dravin]

Dravin, I haven't been including the burgers on purpose.

To this point you haven't specified that you aren't including them, even when asked.

Basic right and wrong, or good and evil (if it helps, moral choice)

See, now you're defining it.

[applepansy]

To this point you haven't specified that you aren't including them, even when asked.

See, now you're defining it.

Dravin, if I had the definition I wouldn't have asked the question.

[JudoMinja]

Sort of off topic, but thoughts that came to mind reading this thread:

It is amazing how important it is that we define even the most commonly used words for others, especially when we are seeking further insight on the meaning or details of said word. Even among people who speak the same language, the same word does not always mean the same thing. We each have our own understanding and background that plays into how we see that word.

Whenever I've participated in any sort of debate, especially one pertaining to morality, ethics, and/or religion, I've come across many many definitions of the same word. Most of them overlap and have basically the same meaning, but some I never would have thought of.

I remember taking a class on science and religion where defining words was a frequent event throughout the course. We would go over the many possible definitions of a word, the many views of many different people around the world that played into those varying definitions, and then we would determine which definition we were using for the class.

Right and wrong can be defined so many different ways. It is important that we understand what we are talking about in as much detail as possible before we can go into any further detail. I can define it to the best of my understanding, but that definition may not fit yours and as such not answer your question. I think Dravin is right to say that a definition is needed before your question can be answered, but I also think that the reason you have been unable to give a definition is because that is exactly what you are searching for with your question.

[Dravin]

Dravin, if I had the definition I wouldn't have asked the question.

You obviously had something in mind, unless you mean to say the idea of right and wrong on a moral dimension was something that came over the course of the discussion. Just because one doesn't have a good definition doesn't mean one can not narrow things down a wee bit with what they have in mind. I may not have a perfect definition of a cookie, but at least I can specify I'm talking about something sweet and baked.

If you didn't have anything in mind then saying you haven't been including burgers on purpose is misleading, because you weren't.

[applepansy]

You obviously had something in mind, unless you mean to say the idea of right and wrong on a moral dimension was something that came over the course of the discussion. Just because one doesn't have a good definition doesn't mean one can not narrow things down a wee bit with what they have in mind. I may not have a perfect definition of a cookie, but at least I can specify I'm talking about something sweet and baked.

If you didn't have anything in mind then saying you haven't been including burgers on purpose is misleading, because you weren't.

sigh... I don't understand why you want to condemn for my question. It was an honest question. If I had used specific right and wrong situations and circumstances to "define" then my question would not have been answered. The discussion would have ended up being about the specific situations and circumstances. I was trying to find the core of the issue.

I appreciate the posts. I found my answer and I know have my definition. It may not be your definition. But the Spirit tells me its the definition I need.

:) thank you Dravin. I apologize if this thread has been frustrating for you.

[applepansy]

Sort of off topic, but thoughts that came to mind reading this thread:

It is amazing how important it is that we define even the most commonly used words for others, especially when we are seeking further insight on the meaning or details of said word. Even among people who speak the same language, the same word does not always mean the same thing. We each have our own understanding and background that plays into how we see that word.

Whenever I've participated in any sort of debate, especially one pertaining to morality, ethics, and/or religion, I've come across many many definitions of the same word. Most of them overlap and have basically the same meaning, but some I never would have thought of.

I remember taking a class on science and religion where defining words was a frequent event throughout the course. We would go over the many possible definitions of a word, the many views of many different people around the world that played into those varying definitions, and then we would determine which definition we were using for the class.

Right and wrong can be defined so many different ways. It is important that we understand what we are talking about in as much detail as possible before we can go into any further detail. I can define it to the best of my understanding, but that definition may not fit yours and as such not answer your question. I think Dravin is right to say that a definition is needed before your question can be answered, but I also think that the reason you have been unable to give a definition is because that is exactly what you are searching for with your question.

Thank you. It has been difficult and I realize its been frustrating for those trying to help.

If I had said the definition of right is what God says is right then we would have gotten into a discussion about God, and then all the definitions of right. If I has said the definition of wrong is that its wrong to have square cheeseburger then we would have been discussing burgers. Specific situations, circumstances or subject wasn't what I was looking for.

thank you for understanding.

[Wingnut]

Yet without definition, you aren't satisfied with equally ambiguous responses.

[applepansy]

Wingnut, it wasn't about satisfaction either. It was about exploring an idea.

I'm sorry it frustrated you too.

[Finrock]

Good morning applepansy! I hope you are doing well. :)

If I had said the definition of right is what God says is right then we would have gotten into a discussion about God, and then all the definitions of right. If I has said the definition of wrong is that its wrong to have square cheeseburger then we would have been discussing burgers. Specific situations, circumstances or subject wasn't what I was looking for.

thank you for understanding.

The issue with the question isn't a matter of providing a specific definition, per se, but a matter of providing at least a basic sense. In other words it is a matter of equivocation. Equivocating is, for instance, when a word or term is used in one sense at the beginning of an argument/discussion but then that sense of the word is changed at the end of the argument/discussion. So, what people have been trying to find out from you is in what "sense" are you using the terms "right and wrong". Providing the "sense" doesn't require you to define it exactly. It requires you to specify how exactly are you intending to use those terms. If the terms right and wrong were unambiguous (meaning there was only one sense in which they could be used) then there would be no confusion or question as to how you were using those terms.

Further, your responses have mixed the senses of the terms "right and wrong" therefore making it extremely difficult to do any sort of sense disambiguation using the context of your examples. For instance you postulate that "no definition of right and wrong is required" to continue the discussion. Later you postulate that you aren't speaking necessarily of right and wrong in a moral context. Yet, your examples of right and wrong are placed in a moral context. For instance your examples speak of Satan muddying the waters. I can think of no other context to place right and wrong accept in a moral context when speaking of "Satan muddying the waters" of right and wrong causing people to not understand right and wrong. Yet when asked to clarify if you are using right and wrong in a moral sense, you deny that you necessarily are. Quite literally your position has been nonsensical because your position is persistently equivocating. It is logically fallacious to equivocate. This is essentially why your question has been met with such confusion and "frustration" and justifiably so, I might add.

OK, now that I've gotten that out I'll try and answer your question:

"Is right and wrong subjective or objective?"

Well, it depends. What does it depend on? It depends on how you are using the terms right and wrong because right and wrong do not have a single sense in which they are used, therefore we must clarify the words if we are to have a intelligent discussion about this matter. Else, we will be speaking past each other. In a moral sense, right and wrong are objective. In a mathematical sense, right and wrong are objective. In other senses of the words, right and wrong can be subjective. For instance, when dealing with personal tastes.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest]

There was a mention about clothing...

So, let me try to muddle this some more.

Right and Wrong for a particular society without including God in the discussion is rooted in tradition.

A person born to the Tasaday tribe of Southern Cotabato, Philippines will not feel the need for clothing except that which covers only the bottom private parts as is tradition. A lot of children born in the village will refuse to wear these uncomfortable "clothes" until they get whacked a few times by their elders when they go without it. The reasoning for the g-string is quite practical - lots of bugs in that area and the bottom privates are the most sensitive. Bug bites in other places of the body are fine with them - not as much with the privates. Women usually add on the traditional "palm skirt" - not for bugs, but for vanity. Amazingly. And the mammaries are left bare for practical reasons.

So, what is "BASIC" right and wrong? I can tell you clothing is not instinctively one of them.

So if you look deeper into your understanding of what "basic" right and wrong is - it is nothing more than the Light of Christ that leads people to search for truth.

[applepansy]

Finrock, I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

Anatess...thank you also.

[selfhelp123]

Hi,

According to me, a person should use his/her mind to figure out what is right and what's wrong.

What I think is that we should try to think positively because at the end of the day optimism leads to success and true success is achieved if you have done the right thing.

We should always try to keep ourselves motivated and inspired by reading inspirational phrases and quotes.

"Leap and the net will appear. "

~ Zen saying

Life Modification

[Finrock]

Hello selfhelp123! I hope you are doing well. :)

Hi,

According to me, a person should use his/her mind to figure out what is right and what's wrong.

What I think is that we should try to think positively because at the end of the day optimism leads to success and true success is achieved if you have done the right thing.

We should always try to keep ourselves motivated and inspired by reading inspirational phrases and quotes.

"Leap and the net will appear. "

~ Zen saying

I get the impression that you are trying to promote something here...

My honest opinion is that you've said much without any substance. I hope you don't mind if I ask some questions for clarification:

1. What is the "right thing" that we should be doing?

2. What does it mean to "think positively"?

3. What are "inspirational phrases and quotes"?

4. How does one use their "minds" to figure out what is right and what is wrong?

Regards,

Finrock

[applepansy]

After thinking about this thread more... I have some thoughts.

It helped me with the question I had. I found the answer I was looking for (as I posted). My first question (post) was honest. I was looking for exactly what I was asking. I now understand that my wording was flawed. I'm talking about the concept of opposites.

So... one definition of "right and wrong" could be "black and white"

I have come to believe that "right and wrong" or "black and white" at the foundation of the opposites concept is Objective. When we, either as individuals or as a society, decide (or define) what is right and what is wrong, what is black and what is white, how we apply this basic concept becomes subjective.

[selfhelp123]

Doing the right thing means listening to the little voice inside your head and asking yourself if the decision that you have made would hurt anyone or you.

Thinking positively is being optimistic in your life. I read inspirational and motivational quotes and phrases daily to keep myself motivated and would advise everyone to do so because by keeping yourself motivated, you can combat all the barriers of your success.

Life Modification

[Finrock]

Good morning selfhelp123! I hope you are doing well today. :)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to a portion of my questions!

Doing the right thing means listening to the little voice inside your head and asking yourself if the decision that you have made would hurt anyone or you.

So you define something that is right as being anything that does not harm another person or yourself. Is that correct?

What is this "little voice" that supposedly exists inside our heads?

Thinking positively is being optimistic in your life. I read inspirational and motivational quotes and phrases daily to keep myself motivated and would advise everyone to do so because by keeping yourself motivated, you can combat all the barriers of your success.

This is circular reasoning. Can you make your point without using your conclusion as a premise? Thinking positively is synonymous with being optimistic, so stating: "Thinking positively is being optimistic in your life" is obviously true, but it is also logically fallacious and not helpful in defining or describing what "thinking positively" actually is. Suppose I had no idea what thinking positively means? What is positive thinking? What constitutes a positive thought? If I think about an addition problem, am I thinking positively?

Also, we need to know what qualifies something as being "inspirational" or "motivational"?

I'm looking for substance, not cliches.

Regards,

Finrock

[RipplecutBuddha]

Thank you. I appreciate your well thought out post.

I agree that the concepts of right and wrong must be basic concepts in religion. Doesn't the concepts of right and wrong exist outside of religion?

Yes, they do, but historically, even when regarding a society and their moral code, it is driven by the religious standards common to the society. In other words, even society at large owes its moral identity to original religious ideas.

Having said that, religious standards don't always keep society in line with their original morality, or concept of right and wrong. Society will usually take it as a starting point, then gradually become more and more relaxed in comparison with the original condition.

Successful societies in history had a concept of right and wrong. If a society doesn't agree on basic rules (right and wrong) then they cannot be successful. Does anyone agree?

I would be more comfortable in saying that successful societies enforced their concepts of right and wrong. While a given country may have a standard of right and wrong, if that standard is not supported by enforcement of law, the standard is of no importance.

They can agree on a standard all they wish; if they do not enforce that standard, they may as well not have one at all.