RE: Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?
March 12, 2013 at 5:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2013 at 5:35 pm by Tranquility.)
(March 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Which way do you want to take it?
A fair question. I believe that all morality is false.
(March 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Lets try self interest. If you hit your neighbor he'll probably stab you in the liver when you aren't looking....but...if you help your other neighbor he may hold the would be stab-er at bay. So in this case, whats wrong is roughly equivalent to what is detrimental to yourself or whatever you encompass, and whats right is whatever is beneficial to the same. A wide range of "wrong" and "right" throughout or past and here in the present could probably be covered by this - whether or not it's accurate in and of itself, or whether or not it should be this way...............meh.
Would you praise a man for helping another or condemn one for harming another? If so, would you do so out of self interest? More importantly, would you think praise or condemnation were deserved?
(March 12, 2013 at 5:06 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I would disagree that right and wrong is linked to the detriment or advantage of the individual, and I personally find it hard to argue with Kant's first categorical imperative being; "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
The detriment and advantage to the individual is implied in both the golden rule and Kant's more refined version of it.
