Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?

[pro sports5]

If Darwin says that blacks are soon going to die off and sick children in the hospital should die off because they are all the weaker of the species in "the descendants of man" then it is that what you guys believe too?

[genkaus]

"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.

"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.

---

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.

[genkaus]

Am I the only one who understands moral statements to mean there is a standard of dos and don'ts in behavior to which we have an obligation or duty to comply?

"It is wrong to (insert behavior of choice)." This statement means the behavior is a don't according to the standard.
"It is right to (insert behavior of choice)." This statement means the behavior is a do according to the standard.

I can't get my head around it to mean anything else, which is why I ask what the word means.

You are correct and that standard is called morality. Morality is a conceptual guide on how to live your life. Which means your actions, thoughts or motivations which comply with it come under the dos and those which do not come under the don'ts. This also makes it a standard by which you can judge your actions, thoughts and motivations. Compliance is then labelled as right and non-compliance as wrong.

[Muslim Scholar]

"It is wrong to cause harm to others."
What does wrong mean?

"It is right to be helpful to others."

What does right mean?

Right and Wrong cannot be absolute, they are only defined relatively
If you believe in God, then he defines what is wrong or good
If not, then it is usually what the majority (or in power) accept as wrong or good

for example it is right (for most people to eat chicken) but I'm sure it is wrong (from the chicken point of view)

[genkaus]

Right and Wrong cannot be absolute, they are only defined relatively

Yes, relative to a particular moral code.

If you believe in God, then he defines what is wrong or good

Wrong. Existence of god does not necessitate him dictating a morality. Nor does it necessitate the believer accepting it.

If not, then it is usually what the majority (or in power) accept as wrong or good

Wrong again. There are many other options available.

for example it is right (for most people to eat chicken) but I'm sure it is wrong (from the chicken point of view)

That would assume that the chicken has a moral point of view, which would make it a moral agent and therefore the process of eating it immoral by default.

[colossal123]

Exactly, people want to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but when it comes to the reality of the belief everyone is steps back... because no 1 wants to be the 1 to say we should let children die in the hospital or blacks in Africa to finally die off and lets us stronger species survive... but they shouldn't bother you because according to Darwin, morals don't exist outside of cultures. especially to evolutionists...

[Muslim Scholar]

If you believe in God, then he defines what is wrong or good

Wrong. Existence of god does not necessitate him dictating a morality. Nor does it necessitate the believer accepting it.

Well, theoretically yes
Most Gods (claimed by humans)

If not, then it is usually what the majority (or in power) accept as wrong or good

Wrong again. There are many other options available.

What are the options in actions?

That would assume that the chicken has a moral point of view

do you think that chicken like to be eaten?

[genkaus]

What are the options in actions?

Categorical imperative, Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, Stoicism, Intutionism - just to name a few.

do you think that chicken like to be eaten?

I don't have sufficient evidence to assume either way.

[The Grand Nudger]

As a minor nitpick MS, there's actually no difference between the two options you presented in principle, whether you believe or whether you do not, in your example, what is right and wrong is still being determined by whomever is in power - be it gods or humans. I wouldn't argue that might does not make right in practice (we see it all the time) - but we also understand that might does not make right in principle, making an invocation of either the power of a god or the power of a man a poor justification for a set of moral guidelines (IMHO).

[Tranquility]

You are correct and that standard is called morality. Morality is a conceptual guide on how to live your life. Which means your actions, thoughts or motivations which comply with it come under the dos and those which do not come under the don'ts. This also makes it a standard by which you can judge your actions, thoughts and motivations. Compliance is then labelled as right and non-compliance as wrong.

Do you make moral statements and believe we have obligations or duties to behave a certain way?

I can make ought assessments of my own behavior and that of others based on my judgement of what is the prudent thing to do or simply the things I want to do or to be. But it makes no sense to me to assert that there is a duty or obligation to do or not do this or that.

**Edited to discombobulate my last sentence.