|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
There's such a good discussion going on about what a "thing" is, it made me think of a companion thread:
A friend of mine, a philosophy prof in Philadelphia, did his dissertation (have I got that right?!) on the human concept of "right." (eg, how do we know what is right?) He explained it to me thus: we were having coffee together and he picked up his mug and said, "For example, we call this a coffee mug, or just a mug. We have all agreed to call it this. We wouldn't call it an earwig. But how do we know or understand what is right?" That's as far as I remember the conversation, but I think the gist of his point was, do we have a universal right? on what is it based? how did we determine it? if we don't, how DO we know what is right and what is wrong?
Since that long-ago conversation, I've had the pleasure of proofing some of his papers for him. The world of philosophy is a very deep one, I learned....Holy cow! some of the intricate discussions philosophers get into, with regard to what is ethical and what isn't, etc. I'll post some (the bare bones, that is) if anyone is interested.
Meanwhile: How do we determine what is right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Whatever accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest number is right.
Philsophy gives me a headache.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
Whatever accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest number is right.While doing harm to a minority? It then becomes wrong to the minority. Philsophy gives me a headache.Perhaps this tells us why few philosophers had many children! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7 |
On this forum we have two (at least) self-appointed experts on what's right. If you want to know determine what's right for discussion on this board, ask Sick and Tired, he makes all those decisions himself. If you want to know what's right on any other level, ask Keiva, he's just never wrong. The only problem with these two sources of ultimate right is this - if everyone is right, what's left?
Those who think they know everything are always the enemy of those who do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
"For example, we call this a coffee mug, or just a mug. We have all agreed to call it this. We wouldn't call it an earwig. But how do we know or understand what is right?" ...
He answers his own question we have all agreed to call it that
It is Consensus - a shared body of view.
Then he goes off on a tangent about what is right !
From what I have seen and heard of philosophy professors, they ask questions to which they have already formulated the answers they want to hear. (the "correct answer.")
The discussions then are really arguements where each tries to bring the other around to giving the pre-determined (aka correct) answer.
What is really unconscionable is when they pose these questions to youngsters and do nothing to increase their knowledge but instead just embarrass and humiliate them ... unless, that is, one lucky youth stumbles on the "correct" answer ... but don't worry the Prof has yet another twist in waiting.
Arrgggghhhhh
OTOH (people) all agreed to call it this and why they did and how they did and the evolution of words in language and all attendant mysteries are what this place is about.
Send him here to discuss WORDS ... tell him to take his philosophy questions elsewhere - to discombobulate those who give a rat's asterisk!
Dr Bill is right - it is headache-making - to say nothing of the nausea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
If you want to know what "right and wrong" is not, consider this: which holy (i.e. unchangable, unquestionable) books have condoned slavery? (Answer - most of them.) Is slavery now an acceptable practice? (Of course not.) Then you know there is no "absolutes" in right and wrong. What actually is right and wrong (as others have pointed out) is hard to say.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Whatever accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest number is right.
Philsophy gives me a headache.Ah, Bill, utilitarianism. Great stuff. Your entire constitution is based on it, so we can see precisely where you stand on constitutional matters!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Dr Bill (and wow and others!) are RIGHT - this is no place for a philosophy thread. Sorry bout dat. I just find it an intriguing question....particularly given how wedded many people in this ol' world are, to being right. Ever noticed how some people know they're in the wrong, and yet they very much resent having it pointed out to them? A cyclist wrote a letter to our local daily paper t'other day that illustrated exactly this. Someone in a car nearly cut him off, and he gently pointed this out to the man - who growled and muttered and said he didn't cut the cyclist off. The whole conversation was related in the letter and it really was interesting. Same thing happens with road rage. Who hops out of his car and shoots or punches the other driver? Why, the aggressor. Some people don't like having it pointed out to them that they were wrong about something. Some people are pretty good about it, though....the same letter to the ed. talked about another situation in which someone passed the writer on the left on a cycle path (this was in North America, for those who drive on the wrong side - well, it's not the right side, is it!  ) and he politely pointed it out to her - and she acknowledged she was in the wrong, and apologised. Good for her! 'K, enough of my pedantic ramblings about right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
pedantic ramblings
Pedantic? From Latin pedis; of the foot, + antic? You have tricky feet?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
...this is no place for a philosophy thread
Whaddya mean? This is exactly the place for a philosophy thread...especially when it seeks to define specific terms, but especially if we are talking about "right and wrong" (one of the most miscellaneous subjects on the planet)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
s slavery now an acceptable practice? (Of course not.)
There are those who would argue that physical slavery has been replaced by economic slavery. In the USA, anti-trust laws are often ignored, and economic polarization has created a new class of slave owners. It is as if Jeffersonian physical ownership of slaves has been replaced by Hamiltonian ownership of capital.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
no Geoff, it ped+ant+ic Ant like feet..
(she just didn't mention if she had 2 or 6) i don't want to cast aspersions, but we did have archie, the famous typewriting cockroach post.. so it possible she could be a queen ant. (being coddled like a queen ant, giving birth to every being in her known world, could lead her to think she is a godess...)
i think being a queen ant, with 6 ant like feet, might be more attractive than having an ectoskeleton, on her 2 lower appendages...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275 |
...this is no place for a philosophy thread
Whaddya mean? This is exactly the place for a philosophy thread...especially when it seeks to define specific terms, but especially if we are talking about "right and wrong" (one of the most miscellaneous subjects on the planet)
And may I add, philosophy is thoughtful inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge--what could be a more wholesome topic!
And you were not planning to go through all of Kierkegaard's "Stages on Life's Way" or dissect his "Either/Or", were you?
A little bit of philosophy is preferable to some nasty things on this board anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
the person know as Keiva, who recently posted on this thread, was banned, for flaming. he forced his way back into this forum by implied threats to Anu Garg, the founder of AWAD. this same person has also been know, for certain, to post under the names AphonicRants and KeivaCarpal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636 |
Keiva, go away. You are not welcome here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Once upon a time, not so long ago, this was exactly the place for philosophical discussion. In fact, that was why most of us were here. It was a forum for discussion of ideas about words and about words as a means of expressing ideas.
Most of us left when it became clear that we would no longer be able to do that without daily - indeed, hourly - destructive and insulting interference.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
and all most any place, we accepted some word fun, like Geoff's pointing out ModestGoddess (MG, from here on, i think!) claimed to be pedantic, and broke that down to ped (feet) antic (tricky).. i clearly responded to Geoff post, by using his name, and like wise i too played with the word pedantic.. and said it meant ped (foot) ant (same) ic (a suffix that can mean "like"), and that MG was claiming to have ant like feet.
i don't think anyone here though i was 1) really talking about ants, or 2) think MG has an extoskeletan, or even the remote possiblity that she is an ant, or has 6 legs!
mind, though, looking at the subject line just now, i might go off on the tangent of Waxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Go away, Keiva. You are not wanted here.
You raped my identity with your faux handle 'AphonicRants.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
In chorus: Keiva, go away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
see http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=73305There you go again, ASp, repeating verbatim your same old song in six separate threads. If you can't have your way, you'll interrupt to poison any other discussion on this board. Spamming. dr. bill, see Ambrose Bierce's definition of "positive". Methinks thou dost protest too much. You are merely spamming.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
telling the truth is not a flame war. the truth is not spam
Go away Keiva. You are not wanted.
The person called Keiva was banned, and forced his way back here by making or implying threats against Anu Garg.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Keiva: Go away. You are not welcome here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Keiva: go away. You are not welcome here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
on the human concept of "right."
So many things to so many people. So many things to the *SAME* people.
1) Right can mean correct, as in what one ought to do.
2) Right can also mean some ability or state existence that is guaranteed by some agency capable of doing so.
These are distinct ways I've seen the words used, but there are numerous variations of each. I think, however, these two main usages are somehow related, but I can't think how at the moment.
I'm reminded of a poem I once read in a high school textbook
(author is anonymous if I recall)
This is the grave of Mike O'Day
who died maintaining his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
I could drone on, but I'll leave it at this for now.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Sometimes a right is not enough. Hit them with the left also.
Keiva: Go away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Marilyn French, wrote a book, Beyond Power.
in the book she make the point that one can have power to, or power over.
I have personal power, (that is i control myself) I have the power to do things.. Including influence you by my behavior, logic, acts, writings, various means.
Personal Power, power to is a good thing.
Power over is different. as parent, i had power over my childern. i could and did decide their bed times, their schools, their clothing. by choices i made, i had some power of their choice of friends. as my children got older and more mature, they slowly build up personal power. as adults, i now have very little power over my children. and i rarely use the power i do have.
but there are many situation of people either having power over, or attempting to have power over, that are problems.
Our government, is of the people, for the people and by the people. it has some power over me, but largely only the power i chose to give it. If it abuses the power, i can try to vote them out of office.
all governments take power from the citizens. in some cases, the citizens have right about what, and how much power can be taken, in other cases, the power is wrenched away, and the governments power over its people is total.
the same can happen on a personal scale.
i own slaves, i have power over them, not just when they are minors, but forever. Power over... can be a problem.
the book is long, and sometimes seems to belabor points, but one problems is, neither power to, or power over are good or bad in them selves. it is how the power is used.
a large part of right or wrong is who's power is making it right or wrong? a child with personal power, might bonk another child on the head with a toy -- if the toy is a teddy bear, is one problem. if the toy is metal truck, it is another.
in this case, a parents power over the child, is more important than the childs power.
when that child grows up, it is the governments power over that is use when the truck is replaced with a brick..
Right and wrong in a social situations, is a functions of power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Once upon a time, not so long ago, this was exactly the place for philosophical discussion. In fact, that was why most of us were here. It was a forum for discussion of ideas about words and about words as a means of expressing ideas.
I remember such a place.
It existed before Sat Aug 4 00:16:16 2001. After that date some of us were told what we could discuss and what we could not discuss, when some of us thought that this was a forum open for discussion for people anywhere in the world. I used to think that all the serious problems of this board started in September, when as I remember some of us were deeply concerned about other members of this board (but obviously not as much as the new guy in town). I now realise that because I was not around last August when the demolition derby started. Amazing, it took so few days to cause so much havoc.
No reply necessary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Interesting notion. Sounds kinda libertarian. I need some time to assimilate it.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
well, its a 500 or so page book, with footnotes, and details.. and i have reduced it to a few paragraphs.. its an interesting read.. Ms french is better known for her fiction, in 1972 she had best seller with her book the woman's room and most of her fiction is really about how woman come to see that they have power, and how to use, but not abuse it... so her fiction is filled with the same ideas, played out in peoples lives..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
"Meahwhile, how do we determine what is right?"
Does anyone know if this meaning (analogous to "correct") predates the legal meaning, as in legal or constitutional rights? The answer would have some bearing on Modest's question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
This is exactly the place for a philosophy thread
Thanks musick - et al - I guess I was just nervous about, um, being accused of posting where I shouldn't or starting a discussion I shouldn't....Old wound healing, I picked the scab, glad to see y'all rushing in with bandaids where I had feared to tread!
love to all,
mg
So....how DO we know what is "right"? My philosophy friend was talking about right behaviour, I think. Is this the "correct" version of "right"?
this also reminds me of the movie Clockwise, in which John Cleese's character gets hopelessly sidetracked en route to, um, I've forgotten where - deliver a speech at a boys' school, perhaps? Anyway, he keeps trying to direct people who are driving him places:
Cleese: Left.
Driver: Left?
Cleese: Right.
AAUGH!
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<is that the "correct" version of "right"?>>
It's certainly the version of "right" as "correct." Was your friend suggesting that legal/"human" rights -- or such rights per se -- were also things by virture of their being agreed on?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
I don't think he was thinking of rights, thus I doubt he was thinking of things. I think he was thinking of the general concept of right.
F'rinstance, how do we know that killing someone is wrong? how do we know that it is right NOT to kill someone? (is perhaps a more apt way of putting it)
I suppose this is the right that comes from our reason and (supposedly) sets us apart from the dumb beasts. (and who said they were dumb, anyway, just because they don't speak a human language!)
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
"...the general concept of right..." (Modest)
Then he was talking about ethics and not about rights per se -- unless he was talking about, e.g. an (inalienable) right to life which would wronged by murder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear MG: Does a lion have a right to eat a lamb?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Ooof, I have some trouble following this type of philosophical discussion. My mind tries to wrap itself around an answer and I just can't get it out properly.
I think we know what is right or wrong when we realize that we would or wouldn't want to happen to us. For example, when a child gets a toy taken away from him, he feels upset. He then know that taking a toy away from somebody else will make them feel upset. We tell the child it is wrong to take a toy away and he associates making a person feel bad as being wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Bill, does a human have a right to eat a chicken. Ahhhh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Dear MG: Does a lion have a right to eat a lamb?
Dear Bill: Only if I don't get to the lamb first. Mmmmmmm.
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Perhaps this is an ethics discussion after all....? I guess maybe that was what I was hinting at.
An example: We know it is wrong to hit someone else. How do we know it is wrong to hit someone else?
Then: Someone does something foolish or inconsiderate or downright nasty; someone affected by this action, hits the first someone. Is the second someone still wrong, given the provocation? (sometimes hitting someone is almost a reflex reaction, or appears to be with some people - I have never done it, but) What about the first someone? Surely he wasn't right to do what he did? but would it make him less wrong if he were being unintentionally provoking?
and two wrongs don't make a right, so perhaps both are out to lunch - the provoker and the provokee.
But how do we know, for example, when we read a newspaper article about something, that a certain action was "wrong" as opposed to "right"? Kingston, where I live, is somewhat known as a prison town - there being something like seven or so penitentiaries and correctional facilities in the area. There has been a lot of hullabaloo recently about corruption among the guards at one of the institutions (or maybe all of them - one wearies of keeping track of this kind o' thing). One story I heard recently was that one guard made a homemade weapon by sharpening the end of a broomstick and wrapping duct tape around the other end; he then hid this in a convict's cell, ordered a search, "found" the weapon and had the convict put in solitary confinement.
How do we know this action of the guard's wasn't right? What tells us it wasn't?
Similarly, what tells us it wasn't right that the guard who saw this happen, didn't report it at the time?
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Hi, Someone does something foolish or inconsiderate or downright nasty; someone affected by this action, hits the first someone. Is the second someone still wrong, given the provocation? If there were a general answer to this question, the whole population of lawyers would be out of a job. Can you imagine such a world ? On a more serious note: whether we like it or not, ethics has always been dependent on time and place. Without some consensus of a local majority, there is no "right" or "wrong". Even then, law is made to facilitate living together, not to do away with individuals' moral dilemmas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
ethics has always been dependent on time and placeI guess that's what I'm getting at: how do we know what is right, even dependent on the time and place? where does our sense of what is right come from? how does it develop? I suspect whoever it was above (sorry, can't remember and if I go to look it up I'll lose this!) who suggested that a sense of right develops through a learning process, is right (about that, anyway ). Perhaps we do learn by watching what others do and their general - and specific - behaviour. I often feel I have an over-developed sense of justice, that comes, perhaps, from reading too many idealistic novels for "young adults"! But how do we know WE are right, when we say of something, "That's just not right."?? Perhaps the only possible answer is that it's all relative/subjective. But that doesn't seem right, either.... Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<I often feel I have an over-developed sense of justice...>>
Or perhaps only an over-developed sense of expectation that justice will be done.
<<But how do we know WE are right, when we say of something, "That's just not right.."?>>
When you pose the question abstractly that way, you are moralizing. I don't mean that perjoratively, only that, in the absence of a concrete instance, the question will yield a general answer that will tend -- to appear, at least -- to be absolute. I think, when speaking of ethics, it may be helpful to ask about particular instances of perceived rights and wrongs and see what general rules or observations might develop from that.
Ultimately, I think, almost any sense of what is right will devolve [upon?] power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Okay, inselpeter, you make a good point. I will do my best - how's this: How do we know it is NOT RIGHT to drink and drive? or How do we know it is NOT RIGHT to smoke? (perhaps a trickier one) For the latter example, you can pull out medical proof, of course. But that only proves that smoking is bad for you and those around you. Some would argue that it is NOT WRONG to smoke; some would say it definitely IS WRONG. Perhaps this is a poor example....The drunk driving one is better, maybe? Or perhaps both are too tricky, too grey, too much of an opportunity for moralising. Perceived right and wrong, though: It is legal to smoke in the street, yet second-hand smoke kills; it is illegal to drink in the street, yet no one has yet adversely affected some stranger's health by the mere act of drinking in the street (leaving out, for the moment, the obvious comment that if the drunken person picks a brawl with a stranger, that affects the stranger's wellbeing - that is not a direct result of the drunk swilling booze on the street, but rather an indirect result). So people might decide, for themselves, that what is illegal is RIGHT and what is legal is WRONG. I wouldn't drink on the street, but not because it's illegal; I despite the habit of smoking and loathe it when people on the street subject me to their second-hand cancer fumes, therefore I deem it WRONG. Damn, these really are poor examples, aren't they? Will someone else please come up with something that is a particular instance of a perceived right/wrong? please?!  Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
where does our sense of what is right come from?
One powerful factor is our need for approval from our fellow human beings. The small child starts by trying out all sorts of behavior, and those which earn him approval (in the widest sense - it can even be that he is given the "privilege of illness") will be re-inforced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
MG,
Among the many things I am not is ethicist. However...
wsieber has proposed as one ethical principle the need for approval. By grounding our ethical sense in a specifically (lit erally) infantile need for approval, he suggests a behavioralist theory of ethics, an ethical sense established throught positive and negative reinforcement. I agree (without promising to supply others) that this is probably one component of a theory of ethics.
Your examples seem to reflect an interest in what is legal, but law is not necessarilly analogous with ethics. In fact, as the *your statement* of you examples suggest, law is subject to examination on ethical principles.
It might be useful, then, to distinguish between right as in "good," and right as in entitlement. One might argue, on moral grounds, that it is wrong to smoke. But this must be distinguished from the legal right to do so. The limit of the legal entitlement *may* be determined where there is a conflict of rights, or entitlements: my right to smoke vs. your right not to be subjected the harmful by-product of my activity. While we may argue about the limitation imposed on one or the other of us in terms of ethical principles (e.g., the increase of the Good), the determination of the legal right either occupies a special part of ethics, or may be determined without reference to the general good. It may be determined by the much more limited good of profit to a small minority of individuals.
It seems to me that the distinction between law and ethics is central to the constitutional project of the United States, both reflecting its idealism and delimiting the conflicts of the citizens of this country: communities with different ethical systems (which, broadly speaking, are systems of social organization around (a) common good(s)) are both force to respect the right of each to exist, and to contend with each other under a single *legal* system, which forms an more general (and generalizing) ethical or constitutional system. Law, then, is gradually elevated to the level of an ethical system and replaces it. But law cannot satisfy the needs of people for sustenance, gratification, and pleasure.
So we've got a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Nearly two decades ago a friend of mine told me about a theory of moral development espoused by a guy named Lawrence Kohlberg. The idea is that people progress through stages of morality. I'm not sure of all the details, but the gist is that there is an orderly progression to things.
stage 1: I value only myself and what I want. I'm the only thing that's important. Infants are in this stage. Whatever I want is right.
stage 2: I value myself, and I value others to the extent they give me what I want or need. Whatever I want is right, and whatever my assistants want is right infosar as it doesn't interfere with what I want.
stage 3: I value the group. The group's opinion is paramount. They decide right and wrong. Adolescents (and a great many adults) are in this group.
stage 4: The law is everything. The law decides what is right and wrong and there is no arguing with the law.
stage 5: Constitution. The law is important, but if enough of us get together, we can change the law.
stage 6: Personal Ethics. I decide what's right and wrong based on some internal sense that I have of rightness.
Given a particular situation and a response to that situation, and people in various stages asked to evaluate the response to the situation, you can find that people in, say, stages 1,2,5,6 might all agree that X was wrong, while those in 4 would say it was right, and 5 would say it could be right or wrong depending. That is, the outcomes of the evaluations can produce some strange agreements, but agreements based on different reasons.
Kohlberg is not talking about what is right and wrong, but about how people develop their ideas about what is right and wrong and how they progress from one view of morality to another.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
There are things that people may have a "right" to do, that can cost the government huge sums of money to take care of them, that the government ought be entitled to take such right away from them.
For instance very few smokers can pay the huge costs of their care as they slowly die of lung cancer
Few motorcyclists can pay for long term care if they get very badly hurt.
Few alcoholics can pay for long hospitalization when they get brain damage.
The rest of us ought not have to pay for their folly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<kohlberg>>
Interesting. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<...that can cost the government huge sums...>>
People have the right to smoke. In fact, I would make the libertarian argument that they have the right to use any drug they wish, privately. That the government places itself in a co-dependent relationship with smokers is another matter. Who, if anyone, should bear the cost of their damaged health is a complex question of responsibility, especially since tobacco is addictive and especially since the government more or less sanctions its marketing to those immortals otherwise known as teenagers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear IP: if people have the right to smoke, the rest of us ought to have the right to
refuse to pay for their medical expenses. I have had to take care of some smokers
dying horribly with lung cancer. The TV should show some of them every day.
It would be genuinely educational.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<if people have the right to smoke, the rest of us ought to have the right to refuse to pay for their medical expenses. >>
Essentially, I agree with you. I just think the web of responsibility is a little bit complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Responsibility aside, don't you think it might be a kindness to prevent
high probability of a very long, very painful death? Even if it meant
taking away a "right"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
a theory of moral development espoused by a guy named Lawrence Kohlberg
Wow, thanks - that was fascinating. I knew the first stage would be an infant but it was interesting to see the rest of the progression.
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Okay, I have another suggestion for trying to determine how we decide what is "right" - or at least, a couple of situations to offer up that I would be interested to see people discuss.
A friend told me that when she goes shopping, she always takes a few chocolate-covered almonds out of the bulk bin to eat on her way around. She told me this a propos her boyfriend being shocked by this behaviour. What she then said to me: "I mean, come on, if that's the worst thing I do in my life....what's the harm?"
I have to confess I was shocked too - but then I got to thinking how almost everyone "steals" during his/her life. Which of us has never made a personal photocopy at work, for example? I know I've done that, and of course rationalised it away somehow.
At one place I used to work, a theatre, I was told that the janitorial staff didn't put spare rolls of TP in the loo because...believe it or not...people STOLE them. I am wondering who on earth can justify to herself (this happened in the ladies', not the gents') stealing a whole roll of loo paper, while attending a theatre production? I mean really. Gimme a break.
Yet how is that different from the illicit photocopy or handful of choccie almonds? which were both justified away by the respective perpetrators.
Wow....I just picked up Gail Godwin's The Good Husband, hoping to find the bit about stealing, and the book fell open at it. Curious synchronicity....(maybe synchronicity is always curious!):
"...unless you checked the answers you did because you felt those were the right ones, the ones I would expect you to check."
"No, I just checked the ones that were the truth."
"Ah, the truth," he said, putting a mysterious spin on the word...."Look, why don't we take a look at a specific question and I'll show you what I'm getting at."
The question was, "Have you ever stolen anything?" Alice had checked the box marked "no," without hesitation.
"Almost everyone, at some time in their lives, has taken something that wasn't theirs...some little thing...maybe just someone else's pencil. Something that hardly seems worth remembering."
...
"No, I'm sorry, but I haven't. I'm sure I would remember it if I did. It would bother me."
(p284 in the Ballantyne Books paperback ed., 1994)
Perhaps that's really what it boils down to? that how we know what is right, is by how our conscience nags at us when we have done something wrong. But then that poses the question: what is a conscience and how is it formed? which is perhaps the same question as "how do we know what is right?"
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<...a kindness to prevent...>>
Yes, I suppose. But I'm not in favor or prohibition. The nice thing about Tobacco is there's really not much apart from immaturity to induce one to pick up the habit. So it may not be a question of abridging a right to smoke as putting an end to the criminal deception of the purveyors of smokes. But that's since we're talking about rights. The one thing I couldn't keep myself from lecturing my goddaughter about was her taking up smoking a couple of years ago. I agree, cancer isn't pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Stealing is wrong. Period. The fact that it's wrong doesn't keep those who steal from stealing, whether it's making personal copies at the office or taking a sample (uninvited) from a chocolate bin.
If something doesn't belong to you, you shouldn't take it. You've assumed the position of ownership when that position wasn't warranted.
If you're bound and determined to take something (anything) that doesn't belong to you, then the least you can do is ask for permission. I have no idea what the chocolate bin owner (or supervisor) would say to your request. I'd expect that most owners or supervisors could care less if you asked permission to make some personal copies from the copier. The most interesting thing, in asking, would be to judge our individual reactions in receiving a refusal. Most people (I'll bet!) are afraid to ask in the first place, and that's the point that those rationalizations come marching in.
I used to be acquainted with a multi-millionaire (honest to goodness) who took a pocketful of paper napkins whenever he went out to lunch. I thought it was wrong and certainly unnecessary given his financial means, but I never said anything since part of my personal ethics is to avoid commenting on negative behaviors of others. I've got enough in this boat of mine to keep me busy correcting myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Nothing to do with words or with right and wrong.
Merely an observation.
A friend of mine, interesting fellow with whom I've lost contact for some years now, introduced me to a friend of his. We showed up at the third party's house and there was a General Lee looking car parked out front (not *that* uncommon) back in Louisville. We knock on the door and a man answers. We're about early twentyish and this man is in his fourties or perhaps fifties, so I assume (an assumption later confirmed) that he is the father of the person we are to meet. He's wearing a housecoat, which seems odd to me as it's only 6:30 and as he walks us downstairs to his son's room in the basement, he asks us both, "Do you boys smoke?" "Uh, no sir," we each respond. "Well, that's good, very good. Don't start! Don't ever start!" his smile seems not forced, but weary. "No, sir. We really don't like it at all." And then out of the blue "You know, I smoked for years and years and I lost one of my lungs to it." I don't recall our response to that, as I think we were both stunned that someone we had not known 60 seconds should give us this bit of unsolicited personal information.
As the basement door opens, the reek of cigarettes is overpowering and a fog of smoke is everywhere. We see the source of the smoke, a young man seemingly close to our age. This was the person we came to see, the one-lunged man's son. He had a cigarette in his mouth. His fingers were stained. There was a fog in the air. Very shortly, he lit another cigarette, without putting the other out - in fact, he left the last half inch burning. I looked around and I noticed there were at least two or three other butts still smoldering.
We went out to a bar that night, which I don't like anyway because I can never hear what people say (maybe that's part of why I didn't like Ulysses - too much like being in a noisy bar). But I was bothered that whole evening, not just by the thought of the one-lunged man, but the fact that his son was heading down the same path. He must have felt horrible guilt about his son's addiction. But not for long. He died within a few weeks.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
If something doesn't belong to you, you shouldn't take it. You've assumed the position of ownership when that position wasn't warranted.
But what about those who believe that "property is theft"? How do we know who is right - those who think as you do, WW, and those who believe in the communality of all things?
[devil's advocate-e]
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
If something doesn't belong to you, you shouldn't take it. You've assumed the position of ownership when that position wasn't warranted.
But what about those who believe that "property is theft"? How do we know who is right - those who think as you do, WW, and those who believe in the communality of all things?
[devil's advocate-e]
the trouble is, the person who feels justified taking the candy is insensed when their car is stolen, or there house is broken into. (other's things are communal, my things are mine!)
anyone remember the Diggers? on of the radical 60's groups? (mostly in NY, but also out west..) they believed property was theft, and own almost nothing except communally, and gave all the rest away. One the the "leaders" was emmett grogin.. but it was very hard to keep up communal living in our society.. old values die hard.
(PS in grocery store lingo, the act of eating candy or fruit while shopping is called grazing. and it is a form of shoplifting.)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,318
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
