RE: Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?
March 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2013 at 11:47 pm by genkaus.)
(March 12, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Tranquility Wrote: "It is wrong to cause harm to others."
What does wrong mean?
That the action goes against the particular morality that is being used to judge the situation.
(March 12, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Tranquility Wrote: "It is right to be helpful to others."
What does right mean?
That the action aligns with the particular morality that is being used to judge the situation.
(March 12, 2013 at 5:06 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Right and Wrong are absolute statements which require context to attribute to an action.
Is it wrong to harm others who are in the action of trying to harm you or your family for instance.
The trick to morality is that in the context of an infinite number of situations and we make do with broad generalisations of right and wrong based on experience.
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."
This is the closest to being able to formulate right or wrong in most instances.
Haven't you already argued against the first categorical imperative? If the action is in accordance with the maxim and actions are contextual, that'd usually make the maxims contextual as well. Therefore, it'd be difficult to find maxims that you'd consider universally applicable without contradiction.
