Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?

[Tranquility]

"It is wrong to cause harm to others."

What does wrong mean?

"It is right to be helpful to others."

What does right mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

Which way do you want to take it? 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.

[Darkstar]

The golden rule (with obvious exceptions, like masocists).
It is hypocrisy to be a complete to everyone and still expect them to be nice to you.

[Tranquility]

Only if the masochist believes it should be otherwise. lol

[Darkstar]

Only if the masochist believes it should be otherwise. lol

Well, they could just hurt themselves, I guess. Unless they were sadomasochistic, which would be...bad. Unless they were hurting other masochists...

*suddenly wonders if the "lol" means he wasn't supposed to respond seriously*

[Tranquility]

lol means I found it humorous. One is only hypocritical when one behaves contrary to ones own beliefs.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

[Tranquility]

Which way do you want to take it?

A fair question. I believe that all morality is false.

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?

---

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.

[Darkstar]

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.

Divine providence strikes again! I read an article on Kantian moral theory for uni just before posting this!

Unless I misunderstood you, it appears you are arguing in favor of traditional Kantian morality. I think that Kantian morality has one fatal flaw, which you inadvertantly mentioned in the paragraph above (third from the top). It is that no general moral rule can be without exception. If you take it on a situational basis, such as saying "action X is moral in situation Y" that remedies the problem. I do not know the definition of "objective" that is being used when people say "objective morals can't/don't exist" but if it is not referring to being able to mathematically prove morals, then I think the modified Kantian morals described above can have some objectivity. I tried to convey a point like this in some other posts of mine, but I think they were poorly constructed posts.

But of course that brings up the question of how to know what is right and wrong in a given situation in the first place, and I'd say golden rule for a good guideline, but you still need your best judgment.

---

The detriment and advantage to the individual is implied in both the golden rule and Kant's more refined version of it.

It's called empathy. Maybe some people can put their own selfish motivations into even that, but it certainly isn't necessary.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

Depends, if they helped another to harm another, probably not. If they harmed another to prevent harm, again probably not.

@Dark, just how wide do you think the chasm between empathy and selfish motivations is? What informs that sense of empathy when you place yourself in another's shoes?