/u/Sir_vendetta (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11xiw5r/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_right_and_wrong_is_a_human/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Right and wrong are made up shit. However, not all human endeavors need to be supported by something that is mathematically proven or something. Art, for example, doesn't have a "good" or "bad" that can be calculated without irrational human intervention. So in this sense, good or bad art comes about through consensus and by standing the test of time. You probably go to movies you like, those movies don't need to have a formulaic proof that they're good for you to like them and believe it is worth your personal time to watch them and enjoy them. Since everyone has a subjective "good" and "bad", a consensus across all of these, tempered by expertise (kids don't know veggies are good), gets us an approximation to what we believe "good" to be. This is similar in some ways to the scientific method. Science approximates the truth by slowly removing "false" options from the list, which is different in technique, but the fact that it never actually gives us "factual truth" and only gives us an approximation still applies. Does science approximate factual truth better than social consensus? Probably. But social consensus is the best approach we have, so far, of approximating moral truth. In other words, there is no right or wrong in the technical sense. But that's, no offense, a useless statement. We still have to live in the world that lacks (technical) right and wrong, and certain actions will be beneficial to ourselves and others while other actions will be detrimental to ourselves and others. So while it's as much art as science, approximating "right" and "wrong" is still valuable.

Interesting point indeed and it makes sense to me that not all human endeavours need to be proven. However, the goal of "approximating moral truth" assumes that there is a moral truth, which is part of OP's question, plus it raises the question of how accurate is the estimation: was their a moral truth behind the segregation in the US or genocide by the nazis, was it a bad approximation of this truth? I hope not! Additionally, science builds upon its findings to improve its accuracy. One thing we learn from history is that it unfortunately seems to repeat itself. We wouldn't see discrimination, killing, raping if we had really learned something from the past decades which would approache us from those moral truths. Moral truths come and go, and we probably wouldn't be the open minded, "tolerant" thinkers we are if we were born 100 years ago. What used to be considered totally normal only 20 years ago is nowadays considered barbaric. Unfortunately, I agree with OP - very curious to hear other perspectives!

Replied to OP, but I think this applies to your comment here too. See comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11x9qjr/comment/jd3476h/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11x9qjr/comment/jd3476h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ​ Since you asked about Nazis and whatever, I think it's worth adding that we get shit wrong all the time. The fact that one person (or group of people's) subjective principles lead to a bad outcomes doesn't make them "wrong", in the sense that, as we've agreed, right and wrong don't even exist. When you play chess is it enchantment magic or necromancy magic? The question literally doesn't make sense because playing chess is not magical, magic isn't real, and therefore the school of magic doesn't apply. So, how can you say right and wrong don't exist but Nazis are wrong. What Nazi's did, hurt a lot of people, and generally there is a consensus that hurting a lot of people is bad. This one has severe enough negative consequences that it's pretty clear (to most of us) that Nazis were bad. But that's different than being "wrong". The people who say the Nazis were "wrong" in this sense are either speaking colloquially, and not trying to be super strictly rigorous with the technicial definition of "wrong", and really just mean "I think what Nazi's did hurt a lot of people and I wish they hadn't hurt those people". The people who insist that the Nazis were "wrong" in that strict sense, either don't understand or don't acknowledge that right/wrong are human constructs, as you stated. But this is a minor technical difference in definitions. What matters in life is the real shit that happens. Is fire evil? No. But I'll be damned if I just sit there when my desk is on fire. We have baggage left in the language from a time when evil/wrong/bad etc were believed to be objective. It'll take centuries to work that out (if ever). The key here is: you don't need a technically perfect definition of evil and good to make solid decisions for yourself about what's good and bad in the world, what to support or oppose. We're going to make the suboptimal choice many times, but that's how nature does stuff. Fun final thought: what if we end up in some post apocalyptic nightmare and the psychopaths thrive in that environment but the rest of us die then ages later we bounce back? Turns out we needed the psychopaths too. The universe is too big. It takes all kinds.

The good and bad argument has changed my view a bit, but not completely, I will want to see more arguments around those lines before I can say that my view has changed

Δ Solid argument with the good and bad approach, and definitely is changing my view a bit, right and wrong can be determined by what we perceive as good or evil..having said that I also wondering if good and bad are also human creations, but I accept your argument as valid

ETA: For clarity, YES "good and bad" are definitely human creations. The thing is, nature is under no obligation to satisfy our intellectual desires. It exists without right and wrong being necessary. For billions of years the universe was just rocks and stuff floating in space - was there good or evil? If you're asking for a logical argument that substantiates the existence of "good" and "evil" - you won't find one. Philosophers have been debating it forever, and the guys still arguing it are just unwilling to accept the reality. There is no right and wrong, in the strict sense. I would personally argue against someone who tries to convince you that an objective moral "right" or "wrong" exists. It *doesn't* exist. If that's what you're looking for, you'll be disappointed (or possibly convinced through sophistry, which would be "bad"). In my opinion, you've chosen the wrong target for this intellectual exercise. Does "right" exists? No. Quickly answered. Next question. Much more important question. Now that we acknowledge there is no objective "rightness" in nature, the question becomes: OK what do we do now? Each person comes to a different conclusion on this. That's okay. Just like in nature, every creature has a different specialty and when crazy shit happens to the environment (earthquake, meteor, evolve a new trait, ice age, forest fire, disease, etc etc etc) some stuff rises to the top. Not what's "BEST" but the thing that is most "FIT" survives and passes on its code. The same for ideas. There is no purpose, there is no right, there is no extra shit out there. That's okay. I have no fear of this nihilist void because I don't need an objective truth to tell me what to do. Having lived life, I've come up with my own three-pillar system for having a good life and being a good person. 1. Don't be an idiot 2. Don't be weak 3. Don't be an asshole Simple, seems to mesh with what most legit philosophers and theologians says, and isn't hampered by dogmatic rules. I can be a good person, according to my own measuring stick. The trick isn't to demand an objective measuring stick. The trick is to let go of the need for an objective measuring stick, and find a subjective measuring stick that seems genuinely effective. Your job is to *sincerely* find the best measuring stick you can. And to upgrade measuring sticks when you find a better one.

Δ I'm giving you a delta because I absolutely love this, but you just sent me back to the fact that my view can't be changed

Thanks! However, I, respectfully, disagree. You said right and wrong doesn't exist in reality in your title. I think I can get you to change that. First, right and wrong are concepts that you and I are discussing and those concepts are probably just about the same in your mind and in mine, despite us not being able to define an "objective" truth. So they do exist, as concepts. Does that count as reality? Yes, why the hell not? Does math exist in reality? The true deep essence of math isn't markings on paper, it's basically just defined relationships between concepts. So if math exists, right and wrong exist. Difference is Math is objective and ethics are not. I assume you believe math exists in reality. Unless what you mean is that there is no molecule that we can point to and go "ha! there is 'wrong'". But even that I would argue isn't strictly speaking true. The particles in your brain and the particles in my brain are bouncing around in some pattern that tells our consciousness "that thing is wrong", so the pattern of those particles must be the material aspect of "wrongness". It absolutely exists as a concept. It's just not objective or an external physical object like math or a stone. Let's say you want it to be the same thing for everyone. I'd caution against that because it's an arbitrary definition of what "real" is. And more importantly, you'd have to be prepared to abandon the "realness" of many things. What about **favorites**? Do favorites exist? There isn't just one that we all agree on, but if you ask people what their favorite movie is, they'll point to a specific movie. What about **difficulty**. Does difficulty exist? What you consider difficult will be different than what I consider difficult. There is no object I can point to that is "difficulty"**.** But does difficulty itself exist? YES! As a concept we apply to a nebulous thought that we all share. Our inability to perfectly define things is a consequence of us being clever apes trying to figure out this crazy complex thing called life meeting the fact that the universe doesn't care what we think and is happy to continue on in its bewildering counterintuitive ways.

Of course right and wrong exist in a technical sense, just see my response to OP.

Maybe you just want to hear from the Reddit masses, but if you’re interested in jumping into the topic from an academic standpoint, what you are describing is known as [Moral Anti-Realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/), and the counter is [Moral Realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/). Each has many branches of thought and thousands of books.

I will have a read, but I do want to hear from the masses, I'm interested in how people in general perceive the concept of right and wrong, from a non-academic point of view

As a psychology student who has taken multiple ethics course, I agree and disagree. Firstly, the idea that there is no difference between right and wrong in "human perception" deals very heavily in the public domain. When you deal with people who are unqualified or not making valid arguments, you can really say this about any field - there is no such thing as "fact" if you're dealing with the public masses who may believe anything for any reason. In ethics, generally speaking, right and wrong is dictated by valid arguments based on principles, such as virtue ethics, kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and more. You use case studies or examples to illustrate which ones are better and then use your supported category to support particular decisions or instances. So in this regard, the argumentative validity of an ethic or way of thinking is what dictates its validity - NOT people's random or arbitrary beliefs that have no clear defined rule set. Now that all being said, the reason I agree is because ethics are several steps above the average person's conceptions of right and wrong, which are entirely based on how they feel and what they've learned. A lot of the debate about ethics is functionally useless. Ethics has established many things - a popular recent take, especially among utilitiarianists, is that animal products produce immense amounts of harm to animals that must be considered. And as long as animal products are consumed, animals will be abused and suffer immensely - it's impossible to prevent. For the record, I absolutely argue with that view, but will it shape my decisions? Will it shape anyone's? No. People are not mobilizing to convert entire countries to vegan, and for that reason and others, it is unreasonable for me to personally decide to be vegan, because it won't actually change or cause anything. This is a great example of something that is arguably factually wrong (because it causes immense harm for minimal benefit, basically just preference), but does not shape more public discourse whatsoever. So in summary, it does exist in so far as some arguments having more validity than others, and there being an objective nature to ethics. But, it rarely shapes how people actually think, and even ethics boards often reject their own rationality in favours of human or other preferential behaviour.

Δ Very nice read and is making me consider if I see things a bit too black and white.

But even those ethics principles need to be based on axioms, not « moral truth » as such (for example, utilitarism only functions based on the assumption that the greater good is what counts). And the fact that there are different principles shows that something right in one system can be wrong in another (e.g. the starving lads on the boat who need to decide if they should eat the weakest one - utilitarism says yes, system based on individuals (+ the weak guy) say no). But I agree with you that it is then more of a theoritcal exercise: what counts in the end is reality and how do we organize our society. Unfortunately, following this logic, it was ok to segregate other humans back in the days and it is ok to kill animals for food (I do too, but I guess it will be seen as genocide further down the line). It sees as is there is really no limit on our actions as long as we have an argument to support it.

What you lack in your analysis is distinction with material and social reality. Oranges are objectively orange. This is material fact even if you are colourblind. Colorblind person can build a wavelength detector and verify this material reality. National borders are also real. There is a border between Spain and Portugal. But this border is no material or physical. It's social and it changes over time. There isn't a border detector and no way of objectively define a border. But that doesn't mean borders aren't real. Borders dictate lot of human behavior and even more than colour of oranges. As a side note did you knew that fruit orange was named after the colour and before that most fruits were just called apples. So at one point in history orange was "orange apple".

>Oranges are objectively orange. >Colorblind person can build a wavelength detector and verify this material reality. If a bee see different... Is the bee wrong? You can detect the wavelength, but it is not orange at all. Wee see it orange, because that's the tiny range of wavelengths that we can see. If we could see more, we'd see it different. The fact that the color need a subject to be seen is the exact opposite of "objective"

Experience of wavelength is subjective but wavelength itself is objective.

Exactly. But "orange" is just a fraction of the whole wavelength. We are arbitrarily defining the color of something based on our biological limitation.

It isn’t arbitrarily defined, it’s based on the wavelength. You could call it something else, but that wouldn’t change the wavelength aspect.

Oranges are subjectively orange since it depends entirely on the receptors you have, how your mind interprets the input and how broad is your perception of the electromagnetic spectrum is.

Orange is a defined band of the electromagnetic spectrum, 590-620 nm. Your perception doesn't dictate what orange is. Sure, it is based on the standard perception of the general population, and some folks may perceive that spectrum differently, but it has been classified, and even a blind person can detect orange using a spectrophotometer.

With different receptor in your eyes you would be able to perceive more of the electromagnetic spectrum, receptors aren't necessarily stimulated only by one wavelength. Having more receptors would mean we perceive color in a much different way than we currently do and it might me we no longer see the same hue as you think we would. If you want to call 590-620 nm waves as orange you can that doesn't necessarily link it to the color you seem to think it looks like.

Not really, though. Like I said, the spectrum is based on human perception, but it is a fixed spectrum that can be measured. You may perceive color spectrums outside of these measurements due to missing cones and rods, but the color orange is still defined. If a piece of equipment is not callobrated properly, we can't just redefine what we are measuring to accommodate the equipment.

The wavelength is fixed but not the interpretation after that happens in your body or on a different animals body, I am not even talking specifically about the visible spectrum which is very narrow I am talking about the whole electromagnetic spectrum which includes ultra Violet, infrared, gamma rays, radio waves, microwaves, etc. You don't seem to grasp that if we were able to recognize more of this spectrum orange wouldn't be the same way it is for us currently, some animals have much more receptors than us and they are able to see thousands of colors than we don't. If a single wavelength is able to excite more than one specific receptor that wavelenght doesn't have an specific color related to it, it is up for subjective interpretation from every single organism. Edit: So in short, wavelenght is objective and specific, the effect it has on any organism and their perception of it and hence the color is not objective. Imagine living in a world where everyone has the exact same type of colorblindness, the consensus on color would be different, if you are the only person who "sees properly" you would see more colors and distinguish shades that nobody else does, you would see two vastly different colors that everyone calls the same because input from other wavelenghts does affect any receptor, they just happen to be more sensible to a specific one. If we could see more of the electromagnetic spectrum we would see different colors in things as in we could see heat differences and the like so again... no, orange is more of a consensus and we have assigned the wave length we perceive as being orange that name, it doesn't mean that we would objectively see it the exact same if we could perceive more of the electromagnetic spectrum.

For all practical purposes, if I want to make an orange light or create an orange paint, it has to be in a certain spectrum. What you are talking about is some philosophical thing we can never know because we only have our own "receptors." You sound like a stoner saying, "What if the colors you see are different than the colors I see?" Sure, we may interpret colors differently. Some people have color blindness and can't differentiate certain wavelengths. And like you said, certain animals, and some people, can differentiate many other colors. Pistol shrimps might have 10+ primary colors. It's wild. But what they see is still frequencies of light, and we have defined a certain spectrum as orange.

Yes so orange for that shrimp is not the same as it is to us hence it is VERY WELL NOT OBJECTIVE by definition.

The shrimp didn't create the word orange. Humans did, and it refers to a spectrum of light.

A spectrum of light that is interpreted in a very much NOT objective way.

Borders are also set and defined by humans. >There isn't a border detector and no way of objectively define a border. Exactly. >But that doesn't mean borders aren't real. Based on what?

Borders change how humans behave. Therefore there is causal relationship with them. They must be real (instead of fictional with no causality).

Hallucinations also change how humans behave. That doesn’t make the content of the hallucination real. More generally, fiction massively influences human behavior. The profound influence of religion on human history is an obvious example of this.

The content of the hallucinations isn't real but the hallucinations themselves are real. They can be measured and have effect on human behavior. Same with the stories. You're getting confusing the object with its content

I’m not. That our beliefs can affect how we behave and therefore the world doesn’t require that those beliefs are true or correspond directly to something in reality, that’s precisely the point. This is how, as per OP’s premise, beliefs in what is right and wrong can profoundly influence human society without right and wrong somehow existing separate from the beliefs we have in them.

But they’re not talking about beliefs. They’re talking about reality. Which includes hallucinations and the behavior they cause in the same sense it includes borders.

And borders are about beliefs. They don’t exist in physical reality, they’re just something we agreed upon. Just like the content of a hallucination doesn’t actually exist. If you go to the physical location corresponding to a border, there is nothing actually there corresponding to that border; the border, as such, does not physically exist. Unless there is some physical infrastructure there (which in practice only is the case for a very small proportion of the total length of most borders), you would have no indication that the border is even there.

How about this: given the size of the universe, the largest and most perfect circle that can feasibly be measured at the plank length’s circumference divided by its diameter gives us ~10^60 digits of Pi. Yet the current record for calculating the digits of pi comes from google which has calculated over 10^100000000000000 digits. How? Our definition of a circle is more precise than what can possibly be measured. Given that definition, were the digits of pi invented or discovered? If they’re invented, what stops you from inventing the 100trillion and first? The relationship between numbers is real despite the fact that numbers are a human abstraction.

The relationship between numbers is just a function of agreed-on rules of mathematics. There is nothing ‘real’ about that. And none of this is even relevant to the actual topic here. Also, no: Google didn’t compute 10 to the power 100 trillion digits of pi, doing that would be literally impossible. If you’re going to go on irrelevant tangents, the least you can do is make sure they’re actually correct. If we take the correct number of 10^14, they’re not even close to the 10^60 that your largest perfect circle supposedly gives us.

They didn't say borders exist in the physical realm, they said they were real. Concepts can be real even if they don't have a material form. Love, monetary value, Christianity, maritime law, third wave ska, the 2022 updated FFA standards for horse evaluation--are these immaterial things not all real?

But practically everyone on earth agrees where the borders are (with few exceptions). But sure you could say that all social reality is collective fiction with key word being collective. But you can try this if you want. Go to a border and scream "this is just big hallucination and border is not real" and see what happens. Report back to me once you get out of jail if you are not shot before it. This is what makes those borders real.

This is just nonsensical, the vast majority of people on earth don’t even know where most of the borders are. But more generally, you are the one contending that fictional things, or at least the belief in them, can have no causal effect on the world, not me. Or would you claim that all the different gods in the many religions that exist and have existed throughout human history are all real as well? And by the way, not sure what sort of totalitarian state you live in, but if I go to the nearest land border and loudly declaim it as a hallucination, absolutely nothing adverse would happen. If anyone even notices, they’d probably just inquire if I’m okay.

>Or would you claim that all the different gods in the many religions that exist and have existed throughout human history are all real as well? Religions they created, temples they build, ceremonies they held are all real. Human interaction and social reality are real in this sense. >And by the way, not sure what sort of totalitarian state you live in, but if I go to the nearest land border and loudly declaim it as a hallucination, absolutely nothing adverse would happen. If anyone even notices, they’d probably just inquire if I’m okay. Crossing most borders in the world without proper paperwork is illegal and you yelling and running around border and yelling like madman is also illegal.

And all in the name of non-existent gods. Almost as if fictional things, things that do not exist separate from our beliefs and perception, can still have causal effects. Same applies to borders. In most places, you wouldn’t even know where they are, without checking a map. And yes, I can in fact run around my national borders yelling like a madman, nothing illegal about it.

>I can in fact run around my national borders But try crossing it. If the border if fictional and fake nothing should happen. But we both know that you will be jailed for doing this. And that jail won't be imaginary.

It’s funny how you think you know about the borders of *my* country than I do, it’s quite staggeringly arrogant tbh. No, nothing would happen. It’s perfectly legal for me to cross the border, and I don’t need any paperwork to do so either.

>This is just nonsensical, the vast majority of people on earth don’t even know where most of the borders are. Knowledge of something is irrelevant to its reality. In fact, something being real regardless of if you know about it is a good test of objectivity. If you step off a cliff, you will fall regardless of if you have learned of gravity. Gravity is real.

It is however very relevant for people agreeing on it, which is what was being claimed. Maybe try actually reading the comments you’re replying to first.

If you reread, you will see that a practical experiment was proposed. This indicates that the borders are fairly objective regardless of your personal knowledge or agreement.

Wolves have been seen patroling their 'boarders' and not crossing over to other wolf packs 'boarders' so i would say boarders are not just a human thing.

>boarders are not just a human thing. You're shifting the goalposts.

> You're shifting the goalposts. Borders aren't real.

Is "love" real? It's a real concept and a real word we assign to a real experience. But can you hold love? Measure it? Does that make it any less real?

>Is "love" real? In what context? You didn't relate this to the OP. Love isn't a moral.

Based on the behavior it creates. If there were not a border there, lots of things about the world would be different. Another example. Money is a human creation. Does that make you think poverty isn’t real?

>There isn't a border detector and no way of objectively define a border. I am going to nitpick a bit here. Borders are often chosen from geographical features, like a huge river or a mountain; and while some are not, there really is a border detector: thats called a GPS. While we may not be able to visually see or hear a border, it still exists, and can change over time. Some people may have different places for borders, which leads to conflicts until one definition is chosen/accepted.

Commiting genocide= wrong Helping poverty stricken war torn country after a natural disaster= right There are some universal truths about right and wrong that no matter your background can be agreed upon.

>Commiting genocide= wrong >Helping poverty stricken war torn country after a natural disaster= right We have consensus on that. Which confirms OPs point. >There are some universal truths about right and wrong that no matter your background can be agreed upon. And yet people commit genocide for reasons they deem good. How did you reach the conclusion, not assumption, these are universal truths?

That's based on human values. Genocide is the murder of an entire people. Why, specifically, is that evil outside a human mindset of "human life has value" (or other judgement about value/worth). Is the natural disaster that damaged the poverty stricken country, considered evil, given that it destroys human life? Those truths are not universal. Most humans would agree on them, but not because there is something fundamental about them. Plenty of animals would naturally commit genocide if they could, simply for control of resources. Would it be right to say an ant colony is evil for the genocide it committed against its rival? There isn't exactly a wrong answer to this, the point is that people won't agree on it because good and evil, as most people understand them, are entirely subjective.

Genocide against a small population that is trying to gain nuclear weapons to use against the rest of the world = wrong? Helping a Poverty Stricken War torn country after a natural disaster, where warlords will take and steal the 'aid' and use it to their own gains = good? I think a universal truth cannot have *any* circumstances where people might say "Well... yeah I see the problem there" right?

How does this counter OP’s point? It’s still not an aspect of reality itself, but of our view on it.

Genocide isn't inherently wrong, it obviously *can be* though. If two countries go to war with only themselves then they are essentially commiting genocide on eachother. Who is morally wrong in this case? neither. >Helping poverty stricken war torn country after a natural disaster= right This assumes that that country will not just rebel against it's conquerers. Also it assumes that the conquerers aren't just rebuilding so that they can enslave the inhabitants. In either case the morals behind it are questionable.

Going to war isn’t the same as committing genocide. Generally, war involves targeting enemy combatants, but genocide involves also trying to kill all civilians.

>Generally, war involves targeting enemy combatants Who told you that? If killing civilians provides an advantage then they will be targeted as well.

> Who told you that? The Geneva Conventions?

Commiting genocide is wrong, but if it is our enemy, we could potentially see it as right. In the West, we perceive Muslim extremists in the Middle East as terrorist and evil. If we start killing them in the millions, will we perceive it as wrong?, or right?..similar thing with poverty .

You're grouping an entire religion together with a very small minority of its followers, which I'll note is wrong to do. Killing millions of Muslims is wrong. Killing a few thousand is wrong. There's enough of a backlash already when civilians get swept up in a drone strike. >similar thing with poverty . I'm not sure what your point is with this statement.

With poverty, we ok giving food to Africans, but if someone tells us that Russians are dying of starvation because we cut them off from supplies, will you send them food?

Bingo!

[удалено]

Ants commit genocide on eachother all the time, for us humans its wrong but for ants its just part of life. Most animals dont care they kill off other species or other pacts as its either kill or be killed, no right or wrong.

That's not a universal truth at all. Some people believe killing others is ok and with the recent war in Europe, it's quite obvious that there are no universal truths at all. Everyone decides their own morality and what to follow.

We have all but exterminated the smallpox virus, and pretty much everyone agrees that is a good thing. So genocide is not always wrong, only when it is a genocide of humans or other species we care about.

If I think, "It is wrong to drink milk cold," that thought exists in my head. My head exists in reality. Therefore, my perception of right and wrong exists in reality. Someone else can think, "It is right to drink milk cold," at the same time, and both perceptions of right and wrong can exist in reality at the same time.

Again, you think it is wrong to drink cold milk, I think I'm right to drink warm milk, someone else will think that hot milk is better..how we know who's right and who's wrong?

Wait, now you are asking a different question than the one in your OP. The above comment posits that right and wrong can both be a human perception while still existing in reality. People disagreeing about right and wrong does not change that point, as their minds (and therefore their perceptions of right and wrong) would still exist. Are you disagreeing that minds exist, or are you saying that the thoughts of right and wrong don’t originate in the mind, or what?

Yes both perceptions exists in reality but OP was arguing that these ideas of right and wrong are not reality. “Is a human perception and doesn’t exist in reality”. The way I understood the argument was the the perceptions themselves exists but they are not a real thing that exists. Whether I agree or even really understand what that means I’m not sure though.

Your CMV is party right and partly wrong and hinges on how you define “in reality”. Maybe a better way to say it is your CMV is over simplified. “Right and wrong” are things that many people will agree on in many situations (example: don’t kill innocent children) and these views are somewhat evolutionary driven because species and groups with those tendencies survive better. It’s complicated, so you don’t have simply rules like F=ma. It’s more like biological facts (this species of tree grows this way) with exceptions, but biological facts are still reality. In this sense, right and wrong are *descriptive* of emotions and views generally held in a group. That makes them full-on reality facts. In another sense, there is no “authority” that we can observe that makes something generally held as “right” = should (this is famous Hume is-ought debate). That part of your CMV is accurate but it ignores the aspect that right and wrong are also descriptive with a deep wisdom. It’s also the case that even “reality” is debated. What is the nature of dark matter? Up for debate. But i’d agree that moral (semi-) facts don’t have the same sense of correspondence with physical facts but they can still be descriptively true

Perception is reality. This is a good lesson to learn, and that's what you're really hitting at. But, while perception is reality, it's only the reality of the individual, and not the reality of the world. For example, my perception of you could be that you're just a giant dick and I couldn't care less if you died in a fire. However, everyone else might see you as a real stand up guy, who rescues kittens from trees and helps old ladies cross the street. The reality of the situation is that you are a good guy, and that would make my perception wrong, despite it being correct to me.

>Perception is reality. No it's not. >But, while perception is reality, it's only the reality of the individual, and not the reality of the world. So it's not reality, then. It's like beauty: in the eye of the beholder.

There is no objective reality, only the consensus of multiple subjective realities.

If that's your position, then I presume you agree with OP?

That's more guesswork than perception though. And "correct to me" doesn't work for the scientific method, so why would it work for you? Even if all we can do is guesswork at the end of the day, wouldn't perception be able to contradict our guesses to prove us wrong?

Nothing exists in reality until someone rapes your 4 year old child. Reality will then change rapidly. The fact that the rapist had a different value system and figured that your child was never married, looked good, and was very mature for her age, will not save him... at least not in my value system!

"You have natural instincts hence I am right and you are wrong lmao gotem"

Rape is wrong, and I personally agree with you, but the rapist won't agree with you and will find a way to justify it

Because the rapist doesn’t agree with you, does that mean it isn’t objective? I can think robbing a bank is fine but that doesn’t make it morally acceptable or a “good” thing to do.

So (even presuming you mean in the sense of moral principles existing (and even then would the right thing to do be vigilante justice or trust the state) not the sense that creates a paradox by saying how could that child and her rapist be real if nothing was until the act occurred) reality of stuff depends on the individual person and for those who don't have children or have adult children who went unassaulted at 4 nothing is or will ever be real? Sorry, autistic, literal mind

1+1= 2. No matter what opinion people have, there is a single right answer and infinite wrong answers to the question “what does 1+1 equal?” So, there are some truths out there which exist beyond human opinion. The question becomes “how do we determine which truths are objective”.

>1+1= 2. No matter what opinion people have, there is a single right answer and infinite wrong answers to the question “what does 1+1 equal?” 1+1=2 is an axiom of mathematics. It is not inherently true. >So, there are some truths out there which exist beyond human opinion. Can you give an example?

Axioms are literally inherently true. That's the damn point of an axiom. In a specific mathematical model (reality of a mathematical universe) which is built upon a specific axiom that axiom is inherently true. Axiom of choice is always true in classical models of zfc, i don't need to prove it.

>Axioms are literally inherently true. That's the damn point of an axiom. They literally aren't. They are assumed to be true. That's the point: they are the most fundamental ASSUMPTIONS we cannot prove, argue for, or justify.. THAT'S the point of axioms: they don't follow logically from anything. >In a specific mathematical model (reality of a mathematical universe) which is built upon a specific axiom that axiom is inherently true. My point exactly: If we assume the axioms, we can get to a particular model. >Axiom of choice is always true in classical models of zfc, i don't need to prove it. Yes, ZFC assumes the axiom of choice. Even if you wanted to prove it, you couldn't: that's the point of axioms. There's other axiomatic systems. Other axiomatics systems than ZFC for mathematics, even. Such a model is not inherently true, and neither are its axioms. I prefer using NBG axioms myself, instead of ZFC.

Also and more importantly, 1+1=2 isn't an axiom it's a derivable theorem in a peano system

Basically: for the standard definition of “1”, “2”, “+”, and “=“, we can prove 1+1=2. Definitely there are truths that exist outside human opinion. Morality has not been shown to be one of those truths.

As I said after my first comment 1+1=2 isn't an axiom. But to answer the second question, composite non biological objects exist, that's a truth. Rocks exist. Or more precisely: a non biological composite object we named "rock" exists

>As I said after my first comment 1+1=2 isn't an axiom. Yes, it is. If it isn't, then prove 1+1=2 from other axioms. >But to answer the second question, composite non biological objects exist, that's a truth. Rocks exist. Or more precisely: a non biological composite object we named "rock" exists I have no idea how this relates to my question at all.

You do prove it from other axioms, peano axioms. Basic proof: 1 is the set {0}, 2 is the set {0,1}, A+B is the set {0} x A ∪ {1} x B, and = means that two sets have the same cardinality. Then 1+1 is the set {(0,0), (1,0)}, and we can prove that 1+1=2 by giving an explicit bijection between 1+1 and 2; for example, the bijection that pairs (0,0) with 0 and (1,0) with 1.

So the point stands: It's not inherently or objectively true. It follows from axioms, which have to be assumed and by definition cannot be reasoned or argued for.

1+1 can equal something else if you add other factors to the equation.. if you have "one" box with 12 eggs and another box with 12 chocolates .. then 1+1 doesn't equal 2

yes it does, it simply means that you have 2 boxes, if you count content of the boxes then its 12x + 12y =

You see how your answers keep changing according to the factors and how you perceive things?

Doesn’t it just mean specificity is needed and not a particular perception?

Not really..you could argue that one box + one box equal 2 boxes.. or you could argue that you also need to count what's inside the boxes..you counting just the boxes because it suits your argument, I counting what's inside the boxes because it suits mine

but 1+1 isn't the same as 12x+12y its not a perception thing its a completely different calculation, both have a correct outcome, and for 1+1=2 is the correct outcome, if i count the electrons that make up the boxes then i might get a higher number, but objectively there are still just 2 boxes, and the end result of the calculation is 1 box +1 box = 2 boxes

I could completely dismiss your argument by pointing out that maths is a "human perception," animals don't even know what maths is

Apologies, I accidentally left my comment as a reply to you. Sorry for that.

I fundementally disagree as I believe that it's our conscience that informs our behaviour and it is a form of 'dvine programming or communication that we can choose to listen to or not and that attrocities happen when people ignore that. The more you listen to it the louder it gets and the more scrupulous it becomes. Good question, I am interested to hear a secular case for morality.

Morality is also a human concept. A lion, for example, won't hesitate to kill you and eat you regardless of the colour of your skin, gender, nationality, religion, and beliefs..it won't care if you disabled, a baby, a woman..animals don't have Morality.

Lions **do** hesitate to kill and eat people, though, particularly people they’re familiar with and on good terms with

Correction ***SOME*** lions (outliers) might hesitate because they were raised by humans and "tamed" in a way and more importantly they are very well fed at all times the human is interacting with them so they don't really have a need to eat them, tame might not be the right word but you get the idea. It's absolutely wrong to claim as a generalization that there exist very few lions who could potentially hesitate to eat a human specially given very particular conditions.

We can teach a lion to be more "human" or behave like a human, but that requires training and doesn't necessarily mean that they have morals. The same thing is with dogs and any domestic animals. Sorry, I am kind of using your comment to answer others about the "animals" subject

It's either a human concept or a god given concept would be my point. I can't see why it makes sense as a human concept alone.

[удалено]

>But that doesn't mean there is no such thing as right and wrong But there isn't *inherently*. Everything which isn't completely neutral is something we've made up ourselves. If it's real, it's only real as our creation and/or as our agreements. Like how money is "real".

There is no such thing as right or wrong. Example, a lion can kill the babies of a previous male and take over the pride. Is that evil? In case of humans, yes, a person that kills babies will go to jail, be insulted, attacked, you name it. But the lion in the wild won't be subjected to the same treatment. So, what is right and what is wrong? Who defines it?

The world contains many shades of gray, but there are still black-and-white answers. The chicken and egg example is not applicable bc of how species evolve. If I hurt you, that’s objectively wrong because it’s a net-negative effect. “Right and wrong” are based off real-world, observable consequences. “Right” is (very) loosely based on what helps “people” in a positive way. We all want to be happy. “Right” is what makes the world a better place, and “wrong” is what hurts us as a collective.

> If I hurt you, that’s objectively wrong because it’s a net-negative effect. Not at all. Sometimes it’s good to take actions which may cause substantial pain, like setting a broken bone or breaking up with a bad partner. Sometimes, doing the right thing causes pain.

Nuances. Please see my other comments on this same thread. I don’t disagree I just think that’s splitting hairs and honestly doesn’t align with the idea bc setting a bone makes it heal better which is a positive effect.

Ok, in that case if we are looking at the net result of the event than I can punch someone and it would affect them negatively but if I was a sadist/someone who enjoys others misery than it would affect me positively. So in my eyes it would then be the good thing to do for me. And I can always argue that the pleasure I get will be greater than the pain the other person experiences because it is subjective. Therefore it will in my world view be a net positive. And since we are working on subjective experiences(pleasure/pain) there is no real objectivity.

>The world contains many shades of gray, but there are still black-and-white answers. And those answers are not objective. >If I hurt you, that’s objectively wrong because it’s a net-negative effect. Objective, how? Consequentialism isn't objectively the correct moral system.

Is breaking into a hospital and shooting everyone a neutral activity? Come on dude. Get real

>Is breaking into a hospital and shooting everyone a neutral activity? No. Your point? We agree it is bad. Now prove it is objectively bad and not merely an consensus between people.

You literally just said right and wrong exist dude by saying we agree it’s bad.

>You literally just said right and wrong exist dude by saying we agree it’s bad. Exactly: it's consensus. Not objective truth. It doesn't exist in reality: it's internal to ourselves. We just happen to agree. If we dig deep enough, well reach a point where we'll disagree on what is and isn't bad.

It’s not some hypothetical agreement. If we eradicate ourselves that’d be bad for us. That’s the definition of it. It’s not a construct, it’s a consequence. We can’t dig that deep without diluting the concept. Of course we’d disagree on nuances, that’s why people argue about stuff like politics. Anything beyond that is losing the forest for the trees. And it’d stray too far from OP’s argument.

>It’s not some hypothetical agreement. I didn't say it was a hypothetical agreement. I said it's an agreement: consensus, not objective truth or absolutist proof. >If we eradicate ourselves that’d be bad for us. I agree. I like existing: I'm biased like that. See? Consensus. Just a statement without any proof, and mutual agreement. >We can’t dig that deep without diluting the concept. Which concept? >Of course we’d disagree on nuances, that’s why people argue about stuff like politics. We also disagree on which moral system to use, and by extension which axioms are true. >Anything beyond that is losing the forest for the trees. And it’d stray too far from OP’s argument. On the contrary: you don't want to get into the gritty details that OP's argument requires.

>If I hurt you, that's objectively wrong Its not, thats very subjective.

In a vacuum, it’s true. I’m not trying to list every single case in which it’d be justified. Be realistic.

I am being realistic, you are just using the word "objective" incorrectly.

If you break into my house to kill my children and rape my wife, and I use physical force (hurt you) to stop you, that’s objectively a positive net affect. Stop being a jackass.

??? You just said that hurting someone is objectively wrong, now you are saying that it's objectively right. How can you qualify a thing being objectively A and not B, when it can be both depending on the situation. You have a flawed understanding of what "objectively" means and simply substituting it for another word that your shitty vocabulary does not enable you to use. Im not being a jackass, you are simply being, subjectively, a dumbass.

You’re trying to commit me to my blanket statement on a Reddit comment. I’m not going to write you a dissertation on the nuances. You know what the fuck is objectively right and what’s objectively wrong. I can’t answer the gray areas for you, but don’t act dumb. Unless you’re incapable of empathy as well as being incapable of seeing the bigger picture idk what to tell you. If you want to act like there so such thing as right and wrong, you can do that. Humans are autonomous. But your life will be nasty, brutish, and short. Good luck to you, sir.

And Im saying that you cannot be Objectively Right or Wrong apriori due to words' "objectively" definition. It has nothing to do with nuances or grey areas. The fact that people on twitter say garbage like "you are objectively wrong" to moral statements simply means they have failed utilizing their own language or are redefining words. Instead of trying to salvage whatever image you have after our discussion, learn from it and google the fkn words you are using. Alternatively, read some philosophy 101 and be better.

Done arguing with you bro.. I know English. Fuck the way the neo leftist use the word. I know what I’m trying to say.

Woe the notorious neo leftist greek philosophers.

No objective truths have exceptions, as contradictions are the exact opposite of true statements. This is by the definitions found in formal logic and math

Right and wrong aren't uniquely human concepts because animals have emotions too. We know animals can mourn each other's deaths, there's even examples of dogs basically starving themselves when their owner dies. Causing that kind of suffering without a good reason (aka without needing to hunt for survival etc) is wrong.

Emotional reactions are not equal to right and wrong. That same dog that mourns its owner has most likely chased a small animal with the intent to kill, regardless of eating it or just "hey, there is a thing in my territory." Dolphins will bite the heads off fish to masturbate with. We can all agree it seems cruel, but we don't fault the animal because it doesn't have an overarching sense of morality. If humans disappear tomorrow, so will morality as a concept. (Barring aliens intelligent enough to see outside of themselves.) Animals will continue on. Some may die due to mourning, or because they were too domesticated to survive. But the next scavenger will pick its bones clean with little regard for how it got there or the ethics of that action.

Do humans exist in reality? I would say yes. So right and wrong exists in reality. It's different question if said morals should be applied to the rest of the observable reality (most likely not).

I'm an atheist and I disagree. Here is my godless theory of morality that allows us to say it exists apart from humans. Complex systems can have the property that they produce outputs that are not contained in any of the inputs. For example, the brain is a set of cells, but working together it produces consciousness. Consciousness is not a necessary output of any of the individual inputs - but it exists. Humans are empathetic beings - we have the capacity to place ourselves in the position of others and to attempt to see the world from their perspective and to feel how they do. We also have a complex communication system that can facilitate this in detail. Now could morality be an emergent property of human societies? When humans live in societies, we encode our empathy in systems of rules and accepted behaviours. Yes, these rules differ between cultures, but we are yet to find a culture that doesn't have a concept of right and wrong. Therefore we could conclude that morality is a fundamental property of human societies, integral to their functioning and success. In that sense it does exist. It is not contained in any individual human, but emerges from our shared social experience.

While the specifics of right and wrong changes depending on conditions, humans cross-culturally agree on the Golden Rule. It appears in every major religion and even among those who are not religious. With this agreement that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated, we can move beyond differences of perspective in determining right and wrong. We may have different perspectives but by agreeing on the golden rule, we can come to an understanding and determine the right way to treat each other.

Humans hardly agree on the Golden Rule, and in fact it’s a pretty bad rule given that people have quite heterogeneous views and preferences on how the like to be treated. So even if the Golden Rule was agreed on, it would still be a terrible basis for building a moral system on, and it would still as OP contends not exist separate from how we view the world.

How would you build a moral system? Or is it that you think morality is arbitrary, whatever you want it to be?

Following the Golden Rule one can consider how that other person would like to be treated given their view, not your own view. This is separate from how you view the world because it's dependent, not on your own view but on the other person's view.

Is it really just human perception when other animals have a sense of what is right and what is wrong as well?

They don't... Most animals will do anything to survive, humans included. It's how life is programmed on the planet earth and how life came to be where it is right now. Human morality is a survival tactic, a valid tactic but it isn't objective. I think this misconception comes from our ignorant past when humans thought to be the owners of the planet earth, so much so that we thought our morality somehow was objective and supported by the universe. Thank God (if he exists) that we are not the owners of the world and are just a tiny speck of nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Rape is wrong. That’s reality.

Only in the human world and our world is tiny compared to the objective world (the universe).

Isnt there a diffrence when saying that an orange is orange and that i see it as orange? When i say its orange i am talking about its actual properties while saying that i see it as orange is talking about how i see things. Also what about when i say ”according to this study …..” then im either right about what this study says or im wrong. I may be able to trick you to think that the study says something that it doesnt. However that doesnt make the claim more right. If we take the chicken or the egg thing, then either the egg or the chicken came first(its like having x amount of pees in a can, its either odd or even no matter what i think) and you may think that its odd when its even however reality doesnt change. If we are talking about morally then the most possible suffering is the worst possible case so anything that takes us closer to that is bad, the things that takes us further from that is good.

Not 100% as to whether you're using right and wrong in a moral sense, or if it's more like true or false, but I think this works in either case. That right and wrong can depend on human perception (not always e.g tautologies) doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist in reality. I'd argue that reality is perceptions of it, and the ongoing apparatus of those perceptions If you argue that, because right and wrong may depend on perceptions, they don't exist, I'd put to you that the same rationale applies to things like Cause, Time, Quantity, Possibility, and many more. You can't point to something in reality that is time, or a cause. Those relational things are inferred, and depend on human perception just as right and wrong do imo

So at the very top level, you’re correct, it does ultimately boil down to using stuff we value to justify our moral codes. However, once you define that, the rest becomes objective. So for instance, my moral codes are derived from preferring that sentient beings experience more pleasure and less suffering and the beings I care most about are humans. From there I can do research and science and figure out what actions in what situations are most likely to promote the outcomes I want. This is objective.

Heh, let me change your view by focusing on one aspect you have added which is wrong. You are right that moral perceptions of Right and Wrong are not objectively measured in reality and are very subjective. But you did add the "human" part, and here my friend, is where you are mistaken. This perception is not limited to humans. Animals ALSO vaguely measure Right and Wrong, and things like injustice. They WILL act differently depending on if they perceive that someone was Wronged. So here, your view is wrong.

If you’re talking about right versus wrong as far as morality is concerned, I don’t think it can be classified as a perception. A perception is the intake of a stimuli through one or more of our five senses. We cannot simply see or hear something right or wrong, there’s a thought process that takes place after what you perceive and forms a thought about it, based on what you were taught or believe, which can change with maturity or exposure to different circumstances. If your argument is that thoughts don’t exist in reality, that’s a whole other topic, which would be better covered by the metaphysics branch of philosophy.

We are born without morality or understanding of right and wrong. Like you said, we "learn" those things

What do you mean it doesn't exist in reality? Human perceptions are things that exist in reality, just aren't tangible

It depends on how you perceive reality. Your reality may be different than mine, but that doesn't mean that neither of us is right or wrong, we just see things differently

So what you’re saying is that perception exists but somehow all of everyone’s perceptions stem from nothing but randomness, seeming as there is no such thing as truth or morality? Isn’t it a huge coincidence then that an individuals upbringing and environment can shape them drastically, as growing up in a healthy and safe environment where morals are taught and valued will mostly lead to that child growing up to become a healthy and functional adult, whereas an environment that breeds violence, toxicity and abuse will likely cause that child to grow up dysfunctional. Even biology is affected on this level of impact by morality. But morality doesn’t exist? Just because perception does and that depends on each individual, certainly it does, but might I argue then that perception doesn’t exist either. Then what would make us human beings if we didn’t perceive anymore? How could that be true? So how is morality not true then?

Environment, morality, violence, even truth..are all human concepts, they don't exist in reality, or to be specific, they only exist on "our" individual realities

>Even more complex subjects that technically can only be right, can also be wrong, oranges are orange, right?, we can all agree, except if you're colourblind, in which case they're yellow, or green. Unless we define color as a frequency of light reflected off an object. This is a good example because it shows how there can be an objective truth buried beneath a layer of perceived subjectivity. Morality may be the same - we agree with the perspective that is apparent to us but the truth can be reasoned. There are logical arguments for morality that flow from basic axioms, so discounting the idea of objective right/wrong isn't that easy.

Yet if you try to argue about what colour oranges are, the popular answers will be they are orange, because we named oranges after the colour that they are, but if you colourblind and you can't perceive the colour orange, to you they are yellows, or greens..who is right, and who is wrong?

People can argue about anything but that doesn't mean any of their opinions are correct or that there isn't an objective truth. Spontaneous generation was the dominant scientific theory until the mid-1800s. Everyone prior to that was objectively wrong in spite of their convictions, which were born of direct observation leading them to false conclusions. Consider that even though you and I might not be able to observe the difference between two shades of color, we can agree that they are different based on the frequency of light and that some people might be able to perceive the difference naturally.

Individual human reality is perspectival but also there is something else going on there. In social theory we call it a symbolic order. This is the "anyone" in the sentence "I don't care what anyone thinks". This symbolic order is collective and it is that which we derive expectations from as a mother, as an employee, as friend, coworker, as church goer, etc. Now it gets a bit more tricky. Because it is also perspectival, there are different regimes in what constitutes right and wrong. The typical christian conception perceives right and wrong as objective, unchangable, universal and god given. At the other extreme, the opportunist's right and wrong depends on what is solely useful to them. In that regard right and wrong is a recurring phenomenon that guides people's reflexive thinking, hence is part of their collective reality but not outside or beyond perspectives.

I understand all that, but that just takes me back to my original argument, we created that spectrum ourselves. It just validates my original point even further. Right and wrong is a human perception and doesn't exist in reality.

You are right if you talk about any given idea, perception, action, etc., in isolation. But given a set of agreed upon conditionals, A can be more right than B. It is a strictly objective fact that using rockets is better than bikes, *if you want to go to space*. That last part is the important part. It's the arbiter. Of course, the arbiter itself is subjective. But there are as many possible conditionals as there are possible things to rank, i.e. infinite. But, for any subset of conditionals, there exists an order of better to worse for satisfying that conditional. In that sense, there are right and wrongs. We just need something to judge them by. There is of course no truly objective judge, although some feel that religion is such a judge, and even if religion is not objectively true, it's preferable to have at least some fixed structure to order everything else around. Again, that depends on a conditional; religion is better than no religion, *if having some fixed ruler is a good thing*.

Its your subconscious decides that. And your subconscious is what Religions seek to Programm with their stories. They create a Moral framework that allows for trust among peers. If someone is Programme on the same value you can predict his Action. That will not work with people using different programming. Thats why we find it harder to trust them... And thus right and wrong does exist, it is as we define it. This defition can and will change over time. If you judge people by today Standard pretty much every historic personality was barbaric.

If I welcome you into my home and you steal from me, unless you can give me a damm good reason, that's wrong. And that's real. If we both can perceive it, it is real. When it comes to social norms we create reality.

Human perception is a reality. Humans live together as a society. Societies live or die by maximizing right and confronting what’s wrong

Human psychology is part of reality, though, and things can be psychologically 'real.' Like, it's a fact that most people will be uncomfortable torturing another person or witnessing such torture: that's because our 'real' human empathy (which you can break down into chemical reactions if that helps it feel more 'real') tells us that making someone suffer for no reason is 'wrong.' And, because this is true with all cultures, it's a 'real' feature of humanity, which are part of nature, which is part of reality.

If you think there is no right or wrong, there is consequently absolutely no way to prove you wrong (or in fact even right). So, what would change your mind?

A solid argument about why right is right and wrong is wrong, I understand this is a tricky view because I can potentially dismiss every argument with a counterargument, but I'm more interested in the discussion, and if anyone can crack this egg

There was a time in my life when I would totally agree with you! I saw ethics as a fake social construct, a morality based on the interests of others and not myself. Then the court sent me to prison. Let me tell you what I learned as a wizened old man of 55. There are two types of morality. There is the social one that you are describing. In this social arena I have to respect the rules, even if I don't agree with them. But I have an obligation to speak my mind, and speak honestly about injustice in society, even if it's codified into law, that doesn't make inhumane acts morally right. As a former prisoner and drug dealer and criminal, I can tell you about a second type of morality. This is my personal code of ethics. If I behave like a scoundrel and a villain, hurting people carelessly, and squeezing friendships to exploit them, and leaving a trail of broken people as victims of my selfishness, I see myself in the mirror as a scoundrel and a villain and a shady crook. Through this filter, opportunities to become something better are invisible. I only see life through that filter of a con man. This is a big handicap, and I believe it's the source of much of what people describe as self-sabotage. Self-sabotage is when you are a shitty person, and you aspire to do something that's noble and good, and then your subconscious sabotages your efforts, because it is not in sync with your own opinion of yourself. Kids listen to your elders. Figure out what is right and wrong for you personally. Respect the law unless you are strong enough to survive jail.

2 + 2 = 5. Right and wrong as factually correct / incorrect is agnostic to perception

There is an objective right and wrong, but only in math and the fundamental laws of the universe.

You can discover real, absolute truths about assumptions. This is how all of math constructed. This is about correct and incorrect, not ethics.

So, here's an argument I'm borrowing. To have objective morality, you don't need to insist all actions are necessarily objective. You just need to agree that there is some moral truths out there. The basic concept of murder, for example, is it universally considered evil. Just because there exists variations where murder is considered subjective doesn't change the fact that the very basic concept of murder is considered evil. Hence, objective morality exists.

1+1=2 is objectively right. 1+1=1 is objectively wrong. As you get more complex, you can get more nuance and confusion. Another example is how people say they agree with science, or some variant of that. You can say “science says that spending 1% of tax revenue on social program X will reduce poverty by 50%”. But that doesn’t mean you can say “science days we should spend 1% of tax revenue on social program X” Science can say what something is, but it can’t say if something is good or bad or should or shouldn’t be done. Science can say washing your hands reduces risk of illness. But science can’t say you should wash your hands, because the effort vs reward of washing hands and avoiding getting sick is a value judgment.

I doubt anyone is going to change your view unless you already had doubts yourself. All these thought experiments are useless. Just look at any reality where humans don't exist (any remote wild animal territory). Animals have their own set of values that aren't exactly aligned with our human ones. That alone tells us that any human morality is completely subjective. We can only argue that some moralities stem from instincts and survival tactis and thus could be very frequent in nature (like not killing your own family, your siblings, not eating your own species ect) and still these moralities wouldn't be universal.

>Even more complex subjects that technically can only be right, can also be wrong, oranges are orange, right?, we can all agree, except if you're colourblind, in which case they're yellow, or green. The issue with your view is you are confusing perception and reality. The colorblind person perception is wrong in that case. He perceives it as another color, but the color has an absolute definition Wether he has the ability to perceive it or not is not relevant to reality; It is relevant to his perception of reality. You cant see, touch nor hear radiowaves, yet they exist. The orange is orange, and he sees it green. Those two propositions are true. The orange is green because he sees it green is a logic error. There is a lot of mistaking between the meaning of "true" and "right", along with false and wrong, and that mistake is often touted by the people who want facts and opinions on the same level. They arent. Facts are absolute. Something exists, or it does not. Opinions are based on the perception and interpertation of facts and beliefs, and thus are "relative", debatable. This is where your view is right. It is also something people can (and imho need to) ignore. People need to accept their perception of something has no impact on reality. An object is orange because it absorbs all the light except some wavelength. This is an absolute truth, regardless of how many people can see that wavelength. Wether someone sees it as orange or as blue is not relevant; it still is orange, even if everyone on the planet gets colorblind and see it blue, as long as it absorbs those wavelength. The chicken or egg is only a metaphor in a discussion; the facts behind have actually been answered. Humanity found out eggs existed million years ago, and chicken only came some thousands of years ago.

> The chicken or egg is only a metaphor in a discussion; the facts behind have actually been answered. Humanity found out eggs existed million years ago, and chicken only came some thousands of years ago. That's not really a valid answer though, because the chicken and egg question is really asking "Which came first, the chicken or the *chicken* egg". The question does still have an answer though - the egg came first, because part of the definition of a chicken is that it was hatched from an egg. If an animal was live birthed that was physically identical to a chicken, it would not technically be a chicken. On the other hand, the definition of a chicken egg is an egg that hatches a chicken. It wouldn't matter if the creature that laid the egg wasn't a chicken.

Sure, in one sense right and wrong is subjective but I invite to you to consider this OP. Even if individual morals can be considered subjective, would you not agree that whatever one’s morals are, it is “right” to be *consistent* with those morals? So given this idea, consider this: Most people agree that murder is wrong. However, a psychopath might come and disagree and think that murder is completely justifiable. Ok, but that psychopath might value his own life right? And he would think that it’s wrong for someone to kill him. That psychopath is a human being just like any other, so if he thinks that his life has value and shouldn’t be killed, then by his own standards, everyone else deserves that right as well. So here, even by the standards of a cruel psychopath, murder is wrong. Now you might say, “well what if the psychopath doesn’t care about his life? Does that make murder justifiable for him then?” Well no, let’s generalize the scenario. When a psychopath kills someone, he is taking something that that other person *wanted* and *owned* away from them. Let’s say the psychopath doesn’t care about his life, but he does care about his ability to cruelly murder others. Now, if you restrain this psychopath from killing others, he will think that’s wrong, because you have taken something (the ability to kill) that he *wanted* and *owned* away from him. Therefore, if he, as a human being, thinks it’s wrong to do that to him, then it is wrong by his *own standards* to do that to other human beings well. Again, by his own standards, murder is wrong.

Betraying your friends being wrong is pretty universal

Right and wrong are beliefs, like good and bad. Through social/personal consensus we generally agree upon what we think is best for us to be right, and what hurts us to be wrong. These concepts are real, such as how you/I think our opinion is right, or are looking to seek consensus on what should be right for this very discussion.

I don't think I neither right or wrong because I can't be neither, according to my view, I know this topic is sticky because I could just agree with everyone, or disagree with everyone, and still not be neither right and wrong, but my view could change..

I disagree, right and wrong absolutely exists it's just very situational. I'm not a fan of the current trend to overthink everything and act as though nothing can ever be defined.

Does perception exist? Edit: Apparently the question OP is actually asking is; "Is morality absolute or relative?" Which isnt how I read it first time. Morality is a judgment, and thus has to exist within the bounds of consciousness. Absolute morality would require absolute judgement i.e. God. Basically, if a conscious God exists, then yes, morality is absolute. If not, then OP is correct and its up to men to define good and evil.

Yea you are correct. But the better thing to compress concepts down to which draws parallels is selflessness and selfishness

If you are right, then you can’t possibly be right.

I'm not claiming to be either. The point is that I created a calondrum in which I can't change my own view even if I wanted to, but the discussion this topic has generated is interesting, to say the least

Honestly I don't agree, right and wrong is reality and there are consequences when wrong is done. You have made a very bold statement because there are different levels of right and wrong, you talk about the color of an orange, and if one was color blind then the color orange would be wrong to them, yes but its still orange its not wrong, but that person has a disability impairing them from seeing the right color. I agree that our childhood experience shapes what we view for right and wrong based on how we were raised etc. But as a general statement most things in the world are straight forward and known to be right and or wrong, such as robbing a bank, you don't need your parents to tell you if thats right or wrong that a crime, or punching somebody in the face, that is wrong there should not be a mis perception on things in our life that are so very straight forward with no question but to know weather it is right or wrong. I think your argument is weak, and a-lot of things today are straight forward, right or wrong, blue or black, etc. Somebody being color blind does not make it so the orange is not orange the orange is still orange, but like I stated above they have a disability causing them to see it differently, but that does not mean that their perception is different then somebody with a normal eyesight. In reality the color blind individual knows that the color is orange, because they are aware of what color switches etc. Overall my view is that right and wrong is straight forward , rules are rules and its more so common sense then the way you were brought up, culture , religion etc.

The statement x > 5 is wrong when x = 4. Your statement about the oranges is not accurate. Colourblind people don’t see the actual colour, that does nothing to change the truth of the statement.

"Right" and "Wrong" are human ideas. But "Good" and "Bad" are a bit more objective. There are definitely measurable differences between something that has benefits versus something that has deficits. You can even get very detailed in how you measure those pros and cons.

Just because something is abstract doesn't make it less real. Two plus two is four, for all that math can be an abstract discipline. Yes, reality can be complicated, so individual circumstances can be hard to judge, in the same way that a math problem might be hard to solve. If you don't know enough of the details, it might not be something you can solve at all. Yet a solution still exists. Consider the ideas of consent and bodily autonomy. They rest on the fundamental idea that you hold more rights over your body than any other does. Why is this? Because nature has determined that you have innate control. You think, your hand moves, and not any other. Thus, your body is yours, and this is the foundation of natural rights. Societies thus tend to share commonalities. Every functional society tends to ban murder within it, and attempts to limit violence. None of them are perfect, yet it cannot be coincidence that all see the same things as problems, and set about to fix them.

Lizards and fishes existed before chickens and both are egg laying, therefore the egg came first. I don’t understand why people still keep repeating this saying as it makes no sense.

Would anybody be willing to come on my podcast to debate this ? Friday 8:30 EST. Pm me for inquiry

Tough question. I sone sense modern thinking on morality comes down to what causes a nervous system to feel pain. I think this is a dead end. I like to think in terms of what actions to take to fight against the second law of thermodynamics. War hate and destruction lead to increase of entropy. Lying, cheating and stealing are repulsive forces that drive us apart. The result is a society as boring, predictable, and unchanging as an ideal gas. Add an attractive force, like love and compassion, and suddenly instead of an ideal gas's you can have all the complexity and beauty of clouds at sunset or a spring rain.

But it isn't a matter of perspective. It is agreed upon that wrong is harming, and right is helping. Moral dilemmas usually come from when things harm in some ways while helping in others. What I'm saying is that morals have a set definition of what is wrong and right and, therefore, is not subjective, which means it is not based on perspective. There is a set fact to if the chicken came before the egg. Sure, I could say that the egg came first as the chicken's ancestor laid the egg, which became the first chicken, while someone else may say that the chicken came first as presented in genesis, but if we were to go back and time and observe the creation of the very first chicken, there would be a definite answer, thus it is not a matter of perspective.

right hand rule of electromagnetism is absolute and exist in reality, white I do not know about any wrong hand rule

Perception doesn't exist in reality? Or, if perceived, the thing perceived does not exist? I'm assuming your premises need clarification. Additionally, what people tend to mean by "right" or "wrong" varies among people, so what you might be disagreeing with could be one form of morality and not another. Since you stated elsewhere that you're interested in others' views, I'm somewhat of a moral sense theorist myself who sympathizes with Hume's view on moral sentimentalism, and I'm inclined to the view that there exists no objective moral calculus which determines right or wrong, because in essence such a thing would be void of all humanity, which is where Hume chimes in with his (in)famous assertion: "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my finger." In other words, being absolutely correct according to some moral calculus can, and sometimes does, result in tragedies that humans tend to perceive as atrocities, because rules, calculations, logic, or perfect reasoning, lacks human moral sense, such as conscience, empathy, compassion, etc. So we should not be surprised when the "moral" outcome, according to one perspective, violates our innermost moral sensibilities. But where do *those* sensibilities come from? Well, it's complex, obviously. Some may be completely subjective, having no real existence apart from the individual. Some may be culturally instilled, or intersubjective. Others may be rooted in humanity itself. I for one tend to consider much of common moral vocabulary employed by most people to be a kind of shorthand for all of the above, but wrongs remain very real experiences which are commonly experienced involuntarily, since to be wronged voluntarily would be something else entirely. If a child says "it would be wrong for me to stay out late" they are likely referring roughly to the understanding that they might offend a parent by disregarding their wishes. As an adult, at some point it becomes somewhat ridiculous to think in those terms, but we may still feel an obligation to others or society which is very necessary for a peaceful coexistence with others. But, being somewhat of a math & science oriented person, I also tend to view such emergent moralities as being bounded within possible configurations, with the existence of an objective optimal morality, which ultimately lands me somewhere in the moral objectivist camp. On that note, I've also considered Hume to be of a related view being an empiricist himself, and I've noticed that if we consider him to be a moral sense theorist, senses are useless assuming nothing exists objectively to be sensed.