Is anything inherently right?

Is anything inherently right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Starbuck09 -> Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 5:39:08 AM)
Is any action, position, law or ideology inherently right? Or is what is right entirely subjective to the individual/society? I am aware that if you follow a religion you obviously believe that your teachings are correct as they are the words of god which is fair enough, so for this debate i'm interested in those who are atheist or agnostic. Personally I don't believe anything is right or wrong as such there are only things that I believe are the right or wrong thing to do.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 5:42:51 AM)
Just to add a caveat here I use the terms right and wrong in the moral sense not the correct and incorrect. I.E. I believe the earth is spherical that is right.

Rule -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 6:28:25 AM)
If it benefits the gene pool, it is right. If it harms the gene pool, it is wrong. More succinctly: benefits = right harms = wrong

FullCircle -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 7:08:52 AM)
If you think about treating others as you yourself would want to be treated then you'll find it easy to determine moral right from wrong without the teachings of a religion. When two people want to be treated the same way it forms an opinion of what the moral code for a society should be, if it is based on hypocrisy and discrimination then it is morally wrong. (What punishment applies to one should apply to all consistently)

Arpig -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:03:54 AM)
quote: If it benefits the gene pool, it is right. If it harms the gene pool, it is wrong. So culling the handicapped at birth is "Right"?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:07:15 AM)
I understand what you are saying there Rule but surely that in of itself is subjective as Arpig's pointed out. Culling certain defective genes from our collective pool would be benficial to the population as a whole but those who believe in the individual worth of each person would say that such an action is deeply wrong.

GnosticDom -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:19:33 AM)
Inherent denotes something that is a permanent part of one's nature. I do not think that right (or wrong) are inherent. For example, cannibal tribes used to kill and eat their enemies. They thought it was right. Eventually, missionaries and others convinced them it was wrong to eat their enemies. It was still OK to kill them however. In another post in this thread right and wrong were equated with benefit and harm. That is an interesting take on the original question, but it does not answer the question of inherent, which is permanent, because our concept of right and wrong can change. Another example is slavery, which was considered right for centuries. Today it is considered wrong. That change voids the permanent requirement, at least as I see it. I think inherent can only be used to describe natural traits rather than cultural, moral, etc. For example, by nature man is a carnivore, and many become vegetarians, however, their choice to avoid eating animals is a personal choice an dot a natural selection. Vegetarians are carnivores who have elected not to eat meat. Carnivore is inherent.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:22:58 AM)
I agree Dom.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Is any action, position, law or ideology inherently right? Or is what is right entirely subjective to the individual/society? I am aware that if you follow a religion you obviously believe that your teachings are correct as they are the words of god which is fair enough, so for this debate i'm interested in those who are atheist or agnostic. Personally I don't believe anything is right or wrong as such there are only things that I believe are the right or wrong thing to do. General philosophy recognizes three as inherent to continue a society: prohibition against murder protection of children *property rights Just FYI.

Arpig -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:29:55 AM)
quote: For example, by nature man is a carnivore, and many become vegetarians, however, their choice to avoid eating animals is a personal choice an dot a natural selection. Vegetarians are carnivores who have elected not to eat meat. Carnivore is inherent. Slight hijack...Humans are omnivores, not carnivores. A carnivore that ate no meat would die.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:29:56 AM)
I'm sorry to sound like a phillistine mystery but is general philosophy a branch of philosophy or simply philosophy in general? I think even those three are debatable though mystery. Take protection of children there are plenty of societies where this largely non existent. In Britian it was well into the nineteenth century before we began to protect them from prostitution, work houses e.t.c. I wonder if the philosophy only relates to the societies in which the philosophers found themselves?

Musicmystery -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:34:46 AM)
You'll have to take it up with them, Starbuck. Philosophers don't go much for the "well yeah, but couldn't it be possible that...." type of speculations. Find philosophers who disagree with those three and consider their reasons. [edited to add...I believe they were talking about protecting children in the sense of ensuring their survival, Starbuck]

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 10:37:43 AM)
That's a fair enough point mystery.

Rule -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 11:00:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: If it benefits the gene pool, it is right. If it harms the gene pool, it is wrong. So culling the handicapped at birth is "Right"? That depends on the culture due to which the handicapped are born. In indigineous Christian European culture the percentage of congenitally defect births is six times lower than in Jewish / Muslim cultures for example. Christianity thus benefits the gene pool.

FullCircle -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 11:38:04 AM)
The gene pool benefits when it is diverse so the very idea of selecting specific genes as superior to others is flawed. In most cases defects come about through a combination of genes it's never often a case of ‘this gene here we don't need any more’. Eugenics as an idea is far too short sighted. There is no logic at all that Christianity as a religion has any effect on the gene pool since it’s not widely adhered to that a Christian must or must no marry another Christian. Just as other religions are not mutually exclusive in terms of who can marry who.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 11:45:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Just to add a caveat here I use the terms right and wrong in the moral sense not the correct and incorrect. I.E. I believe the earth is spherical that is right. [edit: I read your words completely backwards] No. There is no inherent/universal morality and, thereby, no inherent "right" or "wrong".

NihilusZero -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 11:47:32 AM)
Reducing arguments to human biological functions when speaking of what is "right" without adequately factoring in the self-credulity and self-sentience factor now naturally inherent in the species is a recipe for incomplete and inaccurate analysis

Rule -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 11:56:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle The gene pool benefits when it is diverse so the very idea of selecting specific genes as superior to others is flawed. In most cases defects come about through a combination of genes it's never often a case of ‘this gene here we don't need any more’. Natural selection does not work! Have you told mr. Darwin? You ought to tell him your revelation immediately, for he does not know it and is about to make a serious error: proposing the idea of evolution through natural selection. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Eugenics as an idea is far too short sighted. There is no logic at all that Christianity as a religion has any effect on the gene pool since it’s not widely adhered to that a Christian must or must no marry another Christian. Just as other religions are not mutually exclusive in terms of who can marry who. Then how do you explain that the cultures that mutilate the penises of their males have six times more percentage congenital birth defects than indigenous European Christian populations?

FullCircle -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 12:02:57 PM)
Human beings selecting genes is not natural selection so don't dare imply what I said had anything to do with natural selection. You've spoken of this penis mutilation thing before in connection to similar discussions about genetics. I don't understand how you connect penis mutilation with genetics and suggest you try to understand the difference between the terms genotype and phenotype.

cpK69 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/9/2009 12:08:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Is any action, position, law or ideology inherently right? Truth. Kim

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875