Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Depends who defines what's wrong, and how relative your morals are.

Murder is wrong, it is not justified but rather murder is redifined as 'pre emptive strikes' or whatever.

Abortion is murder but is justified by removing the rights of the non-person-hood of the foetus for example.

So what you're basically saying is that if you attempt to do good in a situation and fail, you can still be perceived to be doing bad?

For example: if you lie to spare someones feelings, and they know you're lying - you automatically are perceived as bad even though you tried.

The message is that morality entirely depends on the context of those involved, but we're still comfortable in judging them even though we're apart from the situation.

I find that in itself a very interesting moral question - the aspect that if morality is so individual, so personal, why do we allow others to judge for us what is wrong and what is right?

Oh man.

Only God can judge me, eh DMX?

 Spyral wrote:
Depends who defines what's wrong, and how relative your morals are.

Murder is wrong, it is not justified but rather murder is redifined as 'pre emptive strikes' or whatever.

Abortion is murder but is justified by removing the rights of the non-person-hood of the foetus for example.

Or "Capital Punishment" as retribution for a crime. Yet an "eye for an eye" mentality seems morally acceptable for most of the world.

Abortion could also be considered a murder suicide depending on when it occurred. If it was shortly after conception in the case of a woman on a chemical birth control (which does not prevent conception but rather the embedding of an embryo into the uterine wall and therefore pregnancy) the fetus would really be just one egg cell and one sperm cell. Life had begun even before their union since they're both living cells, but because of contraception, the fertile egg will be voided (and die obviously) with the woman's next cycle. One could say we're denying the right to life with basic contraception, but the consequences of not having contraception, and even the option of abortion is birthing children to a draconian and cruel world where their mothers may not be able to give them the care they need to survive.

Then there is also the debate of what laws should and can pertain to your body. For example there was an American citizen beaten with a cane by the police in a Southeast Asian country because he spit in public. Women all over the middle east are still stoned to death for not obeying the rigid laws that literally smother their bodies, and the debate will likely always rage over the right to choose to be a mother or not.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
So what you're basically saying is that if you attempt to do good in a situation and fail, you can still be perceived to be doing bad?

For example: if you lie to spare someones feelings, and they know you're lying - you automatically are perceived as bad even though you tried.

The message is that morality entirely depends on the context of those involved, but we're still comfortable in judging them even though we're apart from the situation.

I find that in itself a very interesting moral question - the aspect that if morality is so individual, so personal, why do we allow others to judge for us what is wrong and what is right?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Good intentions, and even ostensibly good actions, can nevertheless lead to disaster, and ostensibly bad actions can avert it (think the actions the US took to weaken and ostracise the soviets: a massive number of people were hurt or killed, benevolent governments were subverted, china was empowered, america looked like it was just failing hard at imperialism, etc, but the cold war was ended peacefully).

For another example: the witch hunts. Were there actually demons and magic and whatnot conspiring against mankind, then it would have been outright inexcusable not to eradicate that threat. The issue being this is reality, where those things don't exist, and so trying to fight them is just one big mess of gibbering lunacy.


Of course, I'm really failing to convey the finer points of this philosophy, because there must be a distinction between "random chance makes a good action wrong" and "a poorly chosen action, even if it appears 'good', is immoral, because of its unsuitability to the situation", and the fact that some things that are technically immoral under this are so trivially so that to even bother applying a scale of morality to them is laughable, while actions that are, strictly speaking, moral still carry a weight to them that's vast beyond measure (see above about american actions during the cold war).

Define wrong.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Define wrong.

I believe that people have the gift of knowing right from wrong at an early age. Any parent that has multiple children who has perhaps caught the two year old slapping the new baby has seen the child trying to cover up the crime or deny it. Perhapse a young child has taken candy or a toy from a sibling or another child and suddenly realize they have been observed and begin acting guilty. Conversly a child that helps another or gives a loving hug seem to understand that this is the right thing.
Wrong, as I have been taught, is to go against the 10 commandments.

Relapse wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Define wrong.

I believe that people have the gift of knowing right from wrong at an early age. Any parent that has multiple children who has perhaps caught the two year old slapping the new baby has seen the child trying to cover up the crime or deny it. Perhapse a young child has taken candy or a toy from a sibling or another child and suddenly realize they have been observed and begin acting guilty. Conversly a child that helps another or gives a loving hug seem to understand that this is the right thing.
Wrong, as I have been taught, is to go against the 10 commandments.

Look up Catholicsms notion of 'natural law' - it is an interesting concept.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

So your argument is that what is right is right, except when its not?

Does Batman always follow the rules?
Or Zorro?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Does Batman always follow the rules?

Batman has his own rules

Two wrongs may not make a right, but two Wrights makes an airplane.

 dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

So your argument is that what is right is right, except when its not?

It's about the suitability of an action to the situation, and the accuracy of the motivations for said actions to reality. I believe I explain it a bit clearer in my post on this page, though as I'm typing on a keyboard roughly the length and width of one of my thumbs (with a screen that only shows me the first half of any line I'm typing while typing it) trying to explain in better detail isn't an appealing option at the moment.

You have to live with the results of your actions. The world is full of corrupt power structures and is not always a just place. My advice is be very careful and think before you act. Then go big. And don't get caught. Eat your vegetables too.

Can doing wrong ever be justified?

This is a rather odd question. If the act can be justified then it isn’t wrong. It may not be nice act, it may occasionally be downright brutal. But that’s not the same as a wrong act.

To take an obvious historical example, the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan, which under most circumstances would be abhorrent and murderous, were perfectly justifiable in the context of ending World War 2. It was therefore the right thing to do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Killing Hitler would stop the mass murder of certain groups, yes, certain actions are needed, in my opinion it is not the action which is right or wrong, but the reason.

Killing Hitler before the war may well have been justifiable, but then again only with the benefit of hindsight. Before the war his full intentions regarding ‘undesirables’ where not known. It’s still a matter of historical debate just how much of the holocaust was pre planned and how much was decided as the war went on.

Once the war had started killing Hitler would have been a massive strategic blunder that could have extended the war (and thus gotten more people killed) as killing him would not necessarily have brought down the Third Reich and may well have resulted in someone competent and less inclined to interfere with his generals plans in taking over. In fact I seem to recall reading that the allies stopped planning assassination missions for that very reason. That’s an interesting example of how the ‘right’ act could have unfavorable consequences.

You could also debate how right it was to ally ourselves with another horribly murderous regime (The Soviet Union) which was arguably even worse than the Nazis.

In fact WW2 is full of examples of acts that were justifiable but still arguably ‘wrong’.

It would be interesting for those involved in this discussion to state their belief system.

After all, science provides answers to these questions. If you have chosen to believe in science then there is no discussion, the answers are finite until proven otherwise.

If you believe in something else, magic, spirituality, misguided atheism or whatever then this discussion will be of far more interest and worthwhile to you.

I do wonder how many people here have scientific beliefs and would be interested to know their reasons for participating...

What are 'scientific beliefs'? Also, what do you mean by 'misguided atheism'. It sounds like you're flamebaiting.

I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

No trick questions here.

Science doesn't so much provide moral answers as disprove/discredit faulty ones.

I believe in technology/engineering, with more or less mysticism depending on the mood I'm in (I have, for instance, facetiously attempted to faith-heal a computer before, with inexplicable success, and technology seems to have a disordinately long functional life in my hands) and more or less Adeptus Mechanicus jokes/references. After all, human engineering demonstrably exhibits powers ascribed to various idols in their own folklore, when not surpassing those abilities, so it certainly seems a more fitting focal point for belief than dubious and now unimpressive myths.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Science doesn't so much provide moral answers as disprove/discredit faulty ones.

In your opinion. The fact is it depends on what you are comfortable with as an answer but I don't wish to really get involved in discussing the subject. I'm really just interested to see if any agnostics are part of this discussion and knowing what their reasons are, just out of curiosity.

 Casey's Law wrote:
I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

So scientists don't believe in any unproven 'sciencentific' theories? Belief is not a zero-sum game. To test a hypothesis, there's usually some some level of belief in likely potential outcomes. Incidentally, agnostics are atheist, per the correct meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

Science is not a creed, it's a method.

No trick questions here.

You didn't ask any questions.

No thanks, buddy.

 Albatross wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

So scientists don't believe in any unproven 'sciencentific' theories? Belief is not a zero-sum game. To test a hypothesis, there's usually some some level of belief in likely potential outcomes. Incidentally, agnostics are atheist, per the correct meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

Science is not a creed, it's a method.

No trick questions here.

You didn't ask any questions.

Agreed and Exalted

 LuciusAR wrote:


This is a rather odd question. If the act can be justified then it isn’t wrong.

Dropping A-bombs to end the war and killing Hilter before his due: That’s an interesting example of how the ‘right’ act could have unfavorable consequences.

You could also debate how right it was to ally ourselves with another horribly murderous regime (The Soviet Union) which was arguably even worse than the Nazis.

In fact WW2 is full of examples of acts that were justifiable but still arguably ‘wrong’.

I'd like to remind everyone that the US has it's own fair share of murderous and genocidal regimes, notably those responsible for the genocide of the native population on this continent, the subjugation of their race and other non-white races, and the forced exodus and exclusion of native people from our borders *looks at everyone south of Texas*. It first should come as no surprise then that US favored the idea of allying itself with the Stalinist Regime, when the alternative was allowing it to fall to fascism, which was already known for its atrocities and threat to freedom when Communism was less of a threat to freedom and more of a threat to capitalism. The cliche, but true saying of choosing the lesser of two evils applies to it, considering Stalin was less apparent of a madman before the war then he was after it.

But again, you're right, hindsight is 20/20, and it's not just WW2 being full of examples of justifiable wrongdoings, but war and violence in general. The question may seem weird, but I think you're view is exactly what I was hoping someone would say, because I'd like to ask what gives the justification to take a life, start or end a war, perform genocide, steal, cheat, lie, spy upon, or otherwise take vengeance upon another?

I feel that this question is important considering we as a gaming community love our quotes and possibly live them in a tongue in cheek semi-serious way. "Hope is the first step to disappointment" is a very true saying regardless of the way you look upon it, but may become a serious issue when people actually begin to believe that "Innocence proves nothing."

Clearly a lie was drawn someplace in the sand we dared not cross because we cannot yet find justification for what we believe is morally ill. So, again, what gives the justification to do wrong?

OP, I'd suggest reading up on double effect. Thomas Aquinas undertook this analysis to explain why an action that has forseeably harmful consequences may still be justified. He argued that certain criteria must be met to justify such an act:

- the act itself must be beneficial or at least not harmful
- the harmful consequence cannot be the means by which a beneficial consequence results
- the actor cannot intend the harmful effect
- the benefit must be proportional to the harm

I'm using "beneficial" and "harmful" instead of "good" and "bad" to emphasize that the analysis does not propose its own morality but rather assumes an a priori moral system. In the language of Aquinas, "beneficial" could not also mean "immoral." For those who see no issue with means justifying ends, "beneficial" of course only need answer to the perspective of the actor. It should be apparent that the double effect analysis has no bearing on that outlook -- where the meeting of desire, will, and capacity justifies anything: "I am strong, therefore I am right, therefore I am good." Rather, Aquinas obviously had something else in mind when he talked about "goodness" -- hence double effect.

 Manchu wrote:
OP, I'd suggest reading up on double effect. Thomas Aquinas undertook this analysis to explain why an action that has forseeably harmful consequences may still be justified. He argued that certain criteria must be met to justify such an act:

- the act itself must be beneficial or at least not harmful
- the harmful consequence cannot be the means by which a beneficial consequence results
- the actor cannot intend the harmful effect
- the benefit must be proportional to the harm

I'm using "beneficial" and "harmful" instead of "good" and "bad" to emphasize that the analysis does not propose its own morality but rather assumes an a priori moral system. In the language of Aquinas, "beneficial" could not also mean "immoral." For those who see no issue with means justifying ends, "beneficial" of course only need answer to the perspective of the actor. It should be apparent that the double effect analysis has no bearing on that outlook -- where the meeting of desire, will, and capacity justifies anything: "I am strong, therefore I am right, therefore I am good." Rather, Aquinas obviously had something else in mind when he talked about "goodness" -- hence double effect.

Thats pretty good Manchu...

I was going to be pithy by saying "what does wrong really mean?". But, what you posted takes the cake.

One way could be argued is from what perspective?

 Casey's Law wrote:
No thanks, buddy.

Go with god, brah.

@whembly: Without conceding that I understand your question I will attempt to answer or at least address it in the context of the specific example Aquinas himself addressed, taking human life in self-defense. Aquinas held that the preservation of human life is good and that the taking of human life is bad. The standard objection -- including on Dakka -- is to suggest that the hypothetical possibility (much less the fact) that there exists some person who does not value my life means that my life cannot have intrinsic value, i.e., the property of value is merely subjective and therefore cannot be intrinsic. This is truly as far as their argument goes ("everything is an opinion") and, this being absurd, they must append to it the further demand that I empirically prove the intrinsic value of my life even though they themselves offer no empirical proof that the question is or even can be empirical in the first place. It's a coy sleight of hand that depends entirely upon its own premise, namely that all experience is totally subjective -- which, as I said, they never prove. So that position tautologically collapses in on itself.

Basically the classic strawman argument.

Kind of except the important part is not the substitution but rather the tautology. The people who argue from subjectivity truly do not see this Cartesian duality as needing proof. It is for them "the way things are." It certainly has its uses: it makes science as we know it possible, for one (very huge) thing. But it doesn't prove itself. It's exactly as much of an assumption as Thomas Aquinas's assumption that God exists in a certain way. At least Aquinas conceived of the potential need to prove his assumptions (whether he did so well is a different matter). In any case, I am amazed at how many people fail to realize that the scientific method is itself not a scientific datum. And furthermore, actual scientists very rarely live up to the standards of the scientific method in practice -- just talk to any historian or sociologist of science. Funny enough, when you ask about this issue people say "it's not important that we do science perfectly as a matter of fact; our work is justified because we strive for this goal." That argument seems familiar: "it's not that we need to be perfect people; it's that we strive to be like the Perfect Person that justifies us." That very strong parallel makes a lot of sense considering when and where science actually came from.