Thread: How do we define right from wrong?

Since right and wrong relative,they are defined by people based on their own mindsets.Something right to me is may be wrong to you and vice versa. Some thing right to peoples of a culture may be wrong to other cultures etc.For example(I don't want to criticize anyone's beliefs)having multiple wives is common thing in some countries(like middle east)and in some cultures and religions but it is a crime in some countries like our country(India) etc . So people define right from wrong based on their mindsets but those mind sets are defined by their social,cultural,economic backgrounds.From time to time these definitions change and what right once upon a time may be wrong today and what is wrong today may be right tomorrow.(for example mothers used to mate with sons in early human civilizations but today it would be intolerable crime(at least to me)).When cultural,social and economical changes occur many things change even food habits for example when we have money we will eat good food and eating out of garbage cans may be wrong but when we live on streets and hungry with no money we will try anything to satisfy that hunger even eating out garbage can is possible.so what I want to say is right and wrong are relational and both are a paradox they do not exist(but we have to fallow the traditions and customs of society we live in so we too define right from wrong as our society do that) do you think right and wrong exist? ​

I'd like to say that everything we do is wrong, except I don't really know what's right.

do you think right and wrong exist? ​

Of course they do. That's why there are laws. Now I understand that many laws can be twisted around by lawyers but the essance of those laws doesn't dimish.

Originally Posted by charvaka

do you think right and wrong exist? ​

You've said it yourself:

they are defined by people

WE decide what is right or wrong.

both are a paradox

There is no "paradox".

Right and wrong are like black and white. I was raised in a black and white world. My parents taught me to always say please and thank you, never do this and always do that. The boarders were pretty clearly defined. As I got older, watching the others in the world, I learned that there will be times that I will not say please or I may allow an exception to one of my right or wrong, black or what values, or rules that I was taught to live by. Each time I make an exception, my clearly defined black and white lines, become a shade of gray. Eventually life becomes many shades of gray.
So, in my opinion, as far as social or personal rights and wrongs, every choice must be evaluated by the specific situation and it is not always appropriate or desirable to make a choice that we consider right or wrong, black or white, but to choose somewhere in the gray area.
Cultures, religion, personal values, morals, logic, past experiences fill our lives with rights and wrongs.

Rights and wrongs are rational formalisations of inherent instincts and behavioural patterns that have, or once had, survival value, modified and codified by cultural and social settings.

They are real. They are fluid within boundaries. They are expressions of our humanity. (Right and wrong.)

Something that harms something innocent is seen as wrong.

Right and wrong has two main aspect as I see it one, internal, and the other external. The later is given by society, and the other by conscience. In order to understand right and wrong one must apply self as the testing ground. In the final analysis, try out what you want to do to another human being on your self.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Right and wrong has two main aspect as I see it one, internal, and the other external. The later is given by society, and the other by conscience. In order to understand right and wrong one must apply self as the testing ground. In the final analysis, try out what you want to do to another human being on your self.

Which might be a good point to review as least one of the theory of minds about moral development in humans:

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--
Personally I think there's not so much "right" actions but certainly "wrong" ones I define as likely to injure other individuals or society as a whole. As both an Army officer (somethings regardless of regulations) and in the rest of my life (regardless of laws) since turning into an adult I've always evaluated any action I was considering in that light and did my part (with letter writing to superiors or Congressman etc) to shape things with that definition in mind.

The question is could we even have a society without defining right and wrong? I like the life I have within society therefore I like that we have rules and laws for right and wrong.

Right is what works and wrong is what does not work.
When a lion eats a lamb the lion thinks it is right but the lamb thinks it is very very wrong.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Something that harms something innocent is seen as wrong.

Human sacrifice of (innocent) children was seen as right. Your definition fails.

I guess definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' change over years as well.

I would use the basis of human rights, social justice and equality as a basis for what is defined as 'right' or 'wrong'.

It's one of those grey areas that people like to try and make black and white.

I agree with you they are real but some times people blindly follow what is wrong like many Germans(hundreds of thousands) who followed Adolf Hitler and caused the Holocaust. Even though many people follow something wrong does not make it right.It is the same as if no body believes the truth it does not become false does it?for example in 15th century people believed earth was center of universe(almost everyone)but it wasn't so how can we show people who are falsely motivated(for example ideologically) to believe what we say is right.?I took a course in coursera where a professor said we can not make people accept us with rational argument and to do that emotional argument is needed what is it? and how do we argue emotionally?

Originally Posted by charvaka

I agree with you they are real but some times people blindly follow what is wrong like many Germans(hundreds of thousands) who followed Adolf Hitler and caused the Holocaust. Even though many people follow something wrong does not make it right.

How do you know this?

It is the same as if no body believes the truth it does not become false does it?for example in 15th century people believed earth was center of universe(almost everyone)but it wasn't so

The difference is, the rotation of the earth around the sun can be shown scientifically. Moral truths cannot.

how can we show people who are falsely motivated(for example ideologically) to believe what we say is right.?I took a course in coursera where a professor said we can not make people accept us with rational argument and to do that emotional argument is needed what is it? and how do we argue emotionally?

You are already arguing emotionally.

To me, the primary purpose of codes of behavior, whether legally codified or simply part of a culture's customary expectations, is to enable people to function more efficiently in groups. In this context, "wrong" is usually that behavior which places one's self interest ahead of the interest of the group, whereas "right" is that behavior that places the interests of other members of the group at least equal with, and possibly ahead of, one's own interest. Groups whose members consistently support each other's interests perform more efficiently than groups of individuals who look primarily after their own self interest. The term "enlightened self interest" largely refers to this behavior. A key understanding of ethics is reached when people grasp that they are better off as part of a mutually supporting group than as selfish individuals; placing the interests of others ahead of your own is to your own benefit because it encourages those others to do the same.

I think hardly any adult would disagree with the above paragraph; much of the complexity of ethics comes from the fact that any individual lives as a part of several different groups. People feel loyalty to these various different groups to different degrees. Family is a very important group to most people, and it seems that loyalty to close genetic relatives is hardwired deep into our instincts. But we feel loyalty to other groups beyond family, such as our neighbors, our local community, our nation, our ethnic group, our religion, our coworkers, and others. Prioritizing which groups should come first can be hard to do in a sensible way.

I do feel that making sense of these conflicting loyalties comes easier if people actually take time to think about this issue once in a while. I have long since come to the conclusion that two groups are paramount to my loyalty system, family and the human species itself. I will place the interest of all human beings ahead of the interests of my nation or ethnic group every time. And will usually place the interests of my family members ahead of anyone else's. I accept that other people will have different priority rankings, and will not argue that they are wrong to do so, but will try to point out to people that they ought to have some such ranking clear in their mind.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

To me, the primary purpose of codes of behavior, whether legally codified or simply part of a culture's customary expectations, is to enable people to function more efficiently in groups. In this context, "wrong" is usually that behavior which places one's self interest ahead of the interest of the group, whereas "right" is that behavior that places the interests of other members of the group at least equal with, and possibly ahead of, one's own interest. Groups whose members consistently support each other's interests perform more efficiently than groups of individuals who look primarily after their own self interest. The term "enlightened self interest" largely refers to this behavior. A key understanding of ethics is reached when people grasp that they are better off as part of a mutually supporting group than as selfish individuals; placing the interests of others ahead of your own is to your own benefit because it encourages those others to do the same.

I think hardly any adult would disagree with the above paragraph;

I think you would be wrong, then. Sometimes you have to stand up for your own rights. Otherwise, you'd have to say a slave ought to put the group's self interest ahead of his own.

much of the complexity of ethics comes from the fact that any individual lives as a part of several different groups. People feel loyalty to these various different groups to different degrees. Family is a very important group to most people, and it seems that loyalty to close genetic relatives is hardwired deep into our instincts. But we feel loyalty to other groups beyond family, such as our neighbors, our local community, our nation, our ethnic group, our religion, our coworkers, and others. Prioritizing which groups should come first can be hard to do in a sensible way.

I do feel that making sense of these conflicting loyalties comes easier if people actually take time to think about this issue once in a while. I have long since come to the conclusion that two groups are paramount to my loyalty system, family and the human species itself. I will place the interest of all human beings ahead of the interests of my nation or ethnic group every time. And will usually place the interests of my family members ahead of anyone else's. I accept that other people will have different priority rankings, and will not argue that they are wrong to do so, but will try to point out to people that they ought to have some such ranking clear in their mind.

Why?

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

The question is could we even have a society without defining right and wrong? I like the life I have within society therefore I like that we have rules and laws for right and wrong.

I think what you say is only a part of it, right and wrong can be easily inverted and the opposite could be overwhelming to the detriment of others. However for me there has to be a complexity of variations, it should be in sync with the complexity of the various cultures.

I’ve often interpreted it to mean what I wouldn’t want ‘done’ unto me, would be perceived as a ‘wrong,’ and what I would do unto others in kindness, generosity, etc…as a ‘right.’ (or simply not harming them, as a ‘right’)

Example: I wouldn’t want someone to steal from me, so then, naturally, I shouldn’t exhibit that type of behavior, either. I think that many criminal minded people are socio/psychopaths and those types of ‘disordered’ people, lack a well formed conscience. They may however know right from wrong, they simply don’t care. But, many (most?) people on average, who have well-formed consciences, have an innate sense of right and wrong (and a sense of caring), as I indicate above, if for no other reason, than to treat those around you, as you wish to be treated.

Understanding right from wrong can be subjective in nature, but we all have needs and boundaries, and when people cross over those boundaries, we take notice. So, even if you have no utter objective sense of right and wrong (if there is such a thing), you could establish your own ‘code of conduct’ based on what you deem appropriate and acceptable, in terms of how people treat you. That seems simple enough, right?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Weterman

Something that harms something innocent is seen as wrong.

Human sacrifice of (innocent) children was seen as right. Your definition fails.

by innocent i mean no reason to.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Weterman

Something that harms something innocent is seen as wrong.

Human sacrifice of (innocent) children was seen as right. Your definition fails.

by innocent i mean no reason to.

Does this mean that if you have a reason to sacrifice a child, the child would not be innocent?

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

Originally Posted by kimboley

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

OK what was the answer?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by charvaka

I agree with you they are real but some times people blindly follow what is wrong like many Germans(hundreds of thousands) who followed Adolf Hitler and caused the Holocaust. Even though many people follow something wrong does not make it right.

How do you know this?

I know that from history books I read it an essay about rise and fall of third Reich by William L Shirer and two books in my mother tongue(Telugu)by Julias Fucik(though there is controversy about him that's about whether he turned a traitor or not).And do you actually think a ruler can actually rule a country 12 years and wage biggest war in the history without majority support from people (for war you have to produce lots things which takes man power).Hitler's economic policies saved Germany from great depression without much damage(at least less than USA)and his early employment programs eradicated unemployment
(Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)the common people Germany did not care for freedom and rights since they don't have hunger or unemployment they thought he would take them to greatness and they were brain washed by his racism so they followed him.(though many protested after war started).If they did not followed him if he did forcefully made 20 million Germans march there would have been a all out revolution(not a failed one with some generals).

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by charvaka

It is the same as if no body believes the truth it does not become false does it?for example in 15th century people believed earth was center of universe(almost everyone)but it wasn't so

The difference is, the rotation of the earth around the sun can be shown scientifically. Moral truths cannot.

Why can't we show some thing is true morally?Is it because two people do not think the same way.I hope that a day may come when people truly understand each other and all the violence and wars would end.And I try to make that day come soon...

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by charvaka

how can we show people who are falsely motivated(for example ideologically) to believe what we say is right.?I took a course in coursera where a professor said we can not make people accept us with rational argument and to do that emotional argument is needed what is it? and how do we argue emotionally?

You are already arguing emotionally.

I am arguing emotionally am I really? what is the difference between emotional and rational arguments?

Originally Posted by charvaka

I am arguing emotionally am I really?

Yes you are:

I know that from history books I read it an essay about rise and fall of third Reich by William L Shirer and two books in my mother tongue(Telugu)by Julias Fucik(though there is controversy about him that's about whether he turned a traitor or not).And do you actually think a ruler can actually rule a country 12 years and wage biggest war in the history without majority support from people (for war you have to produce lots things which takes man power).Hitler's economic policies saved Germany from great depression without much damage(at least less than USA)and his early employment programs eradicated unemployment
(Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)the common people Germany did not care for freedom and rights since they don't have hunger or unemployment they thought he would take them to greatness and they were brain washed by his racism so they followed him.(though many protested after war started).If they did not followed him if he did forcefully made 20 million Germans march there would have been a all out revolution(not a failed one with some generals).

Is an almost entirely emotional argument with next to no rationality (at least in support of your initial argument).

For example:

Even though many people follow something wrong does not make it right.

Really?
Since it has already been pointed out that, mostly, people decide what is wrong and right then wouldn't that imply that the arbiter is, essentially, a "joint decision" by the masses?
The more people that decide something is "right" the more chance it has of becoming accepted as such - regardless of YOUR personal feelings on the subject.
YOU have decided (and stated) that something is wrong, while those followers have decided it's right.
Are you imposing your view on them?
Is that "right" of you to do so?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rights and wrongs are rational formalisations of inherent instincts and behavioural patterns that have, or once had, survival value, modified and codified by cultural and social settings.

They are real. They are fluid within boundaries. They are expressions of our humanity. (Right and wrong.)

I'd agree with this. Moral relativism seems barbaric to me as it implies the actions of the Nazis were morally right.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by kimboley

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

OK what was the answer?

LOL. I would really sound like I was rambling to attempt to respond. So many variables. I would be hijacking this thread for sure. But I would most likely want to protect my son.

Originally Posted by kimboley

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by kimboley

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

OK what was the answer?

LOL. I would really sound like I was rambling to attempt to respond. So many variables. I would be hijacking this thread for sure. But I would most likely want to protect my son.

That seems to be what happens.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by kimboley

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

OK what was the answer?

Protect him from the law!
(And then hold a secret family trial and execute him when no-one's looking).

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rights and wrongs are rational formalisations of inherent instincts and behavioural patterns that have, or once had, survival value, modified and codified by cultural and social settings.

They are real. They are fluid within boundaries. They are expressions of our humanity. (Right and wrong.)

I'd agree with this. Moral relativism seems barbaric to me as it implies the actions of the Nazis were morally right.

Well you'll note most of the people arguing against "right" and "wrong" refuse to pin their arguments on simple premise such as what ever lessens suffering for individuals or society (things that can be measured). It's sort of like arguing that temperature doesn't' really exist because Americans and Europeans might use a different scale (it's also a common back alley tactic by religious apologist to insert their own superstitious notions of "right" and "wrong").

--
To answer your question more directly though...even with such a simple premise morality IS NOT absolute since the range of environmental conditions warrant different sets. To take a simple example, imagine an agricultural society with plenty versus a tribal migrating tribe that follows herds of caribou. In the first case it's probably immoral to abandon the feeble or crippled children since it cost little to the rest of society--for the later however abandonment and infanticide were regrettable (and moral) necessities because the livelihood of the entire tribe depended on being mobile.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by kimboley

And don't forget about those times you may forced to choose between two wrongs. Which wrong will become not as wrong? What is more valuable to you morally?
For example, if your only child has committed a crime and asked you to protect him from the law, or to keep his secret, what will you choose to do?

OK what was the answer?

Protect him from the law!
(And then hold a secret family trial and execute him when no-one's looking).

.

I have note the loyalty to the family is so important that the family trial will not happen.
One case over here where the parents did use tough love and dobbed their son in surprised every one. While the young lad was in custody going to prison another inmate beat him to death. Can't locate the story sorry.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well you'll note most of the people arguing against "right" and "wrong" refuse to pin their arguments on simple premise such as what ever lessens suffering for individuals or society (things that can be measured).

Maybe because they do not accept your premise that such a yardstick exists. Have you really invented a suffer-o-meter?

It's sort of like arguing that temperature doesn't' really exist because Americans and Europeans might use a different scale (it's also a common back alley tactic by religious apologist to insert their own superstitious notions of "right" and "wrong").

Or maybe it's a back alley way to get you to see that your values do not have any such an objective basis as you think, and then you might be a little more tolerant of other viewpoints.

--
To answer your question more directly though...even with such a simple premise morality IS NOT absolute since the range of environmental conditions warrant different sets. To take a simple example, imagine an agricultural society with plenty versus a tribal migrating tribe that follows herds of caribou. In the first case it's probably immoral to abandon the feeble or crippled children since it cost little to the rest of society--for the later however abandonment and infanticide were regrettable (and moral) necessities because the livelihood of the entire tribe depended on being mobile.

Well, the Nazis thought that weeding out the mental defectives and genetic misfits would improve the livelihood of society as a whole. Regrettable, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. How do you apply your suffer-o-meter to that scenario?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well you'll note most of the people arguing against "right" and "wrong" refuse to pin their arguments on simple premise such as what ever lessens suffering for individuals or society (things that can be measured).

Maybe because they do not accept your premise that such a yardstick exists. Have you really invented a suffer-o-meter?

Denial? Lack of imagination? Never seen the smiley to bawling face spectrum outside hung above a nurses station? Can't imagine there would be, for example, anything psychological related to pain to measure from a wife who'd just entered the emergency room after being beaten by her "husband." And you couldn't possibly relate this to a general moral code against wife-beating? On a large level never read a veterinary study about animal welfare, or UN study about welfare of an socioeconomic class. Seriously?

Suffering exist. Suffering is a natural phenomena (despite what some superstitions try to tell us), therefore suffering can be measured by science. Just because it might not be so simple to measure as say putting something on a scale doesn't mean it isn't real or shouldn't be examined or used as a measure for further science or to develop rules to minimize it for individuals or society.
--

Well, the Nazis thought that weeding out the mental defectives and genetic misfits would improve the livelihood of society as a whole. Regrettable, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. How do you apply your suffer-o-meter to that scenario?

Godwin much?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Godwin much?

No Godwin here. It's a serious question. What is the difference, objectively, between what the Nazis were doing and what the migrating caribou hunters were doing? You said you could measure it, so go ahead and give me a measurement.

See, I think you just make this stuff up as you go along. If it fits in to your preconceived idea, then it's justified, and if it doesn't, it's not.

Originally Posted by charvaka

do you think right and wrong exist? ​

I think it does exist for humans. A simple example is, as humans, acting selflessly for the benefit of all is a right thing to do and acting selfishly for benefiting the self while disregarding the harm it brings to others is wrong. In this particular instance it is as easy as black and white for our conscience to recognise the difference. In some other circumstances it may not be so easy to recognise, nevertheless it does not mean it is non existent.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by charvaka

do you think right and wrong exist? ​

I think it does exist for humans. A simple example is, as humans, acting selflessly for the benefit of all is a right thing to do and acting selfishly for benefiting the self while disregarding the harm it brings to others is wrong. In this particular instance it is as easy as black and white for our conscience to recognise the difference. In some other circumstances it may not be so easy to recognise, nevertheless it does not mean it is non existent.

I think primarily no one acts just for the benefit to others, but for the benefit to self. people will do as it seems selfless things but not completely. Right and wrong benefits conscience, but it can be detrimental or beneficial to others at the same time.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by charvaka

do you think right and wrong exist? ​

I think it does exist for humans. A simple example is, as humans, acting selflessly for the benefit of all is a right thing to do and acting selfishly for benefiting the self while disregarding the harm it brings to others is wrong. In this particular instance it is as easy as black and white for our conscience to recognise the difference. In some other circumstances it may not be so easy to recognise, nevertheless it does not mean it is non existent.

I think primarily no one acts just for the benefit to others, but for the benefit to self. people will do as it seems selfless things but not completely. Right and wrong benefits conscience, but it can be detrimental or beneficial to others at the same time.

It is said right and wrong does not depend on people's action but people depend on it to be righteous or otherwise.
But I do agree with you that Right and Wrong benefits a person's own conscience. If the basic concept of right and wrong mentioned in my earlier post is actually applied and acted upon, it leads the conscience to further recognition of right and wrong in more complex circumstances is what I believe.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Godwin much?

No Godwin here. It's a serious question. What is the difference, objectively, between what the Nazis were doing and what the migrating caribou hunters were doing? You said you could measure it, so go ahead and give me a measurement.

See, I think you just make this stuff up as you go along. If it fits in to your preconceived idea, then it's justified, and if it doesn't, it's not.

you could always shove it into the Felicific calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by danhanegan

To me, the primary purpose of codes of behavior, whether legally codified or simply part of a culture's customary expectations, is to enable people to function more efficiently in groups. In this context, "wrong" is usually that behavior which places one's self interest ahead of the interest of the group, whereas "right" is that behavior that places the interests of other members of the group at least equal with, and possibly ahead of, one's own interest. Groups whose members consistently support each other's interests perform more efficiently than groups of individuals who look primarily after their own self interest. The term "enlightened self interest" largely refers to this behavior. A key understanding of ethics is reached when people grasp that they are better off as part of a mutually supporting group than as selfish individuals; placing the interests of others ahead of your own is to your own benefit because it encourages those others to do the same.

An individual is a group of one. I think that this definition works, so long as we understand that "right" and "wrong" as defined by any large group will be whatever is perceived to be best for that group.

An individual might have their own definition. But usually when we talk about "morality" we're talking about moral codes that have a large following, not just one person's own moral code. The moral codes with large followings are usually going to be based on group morality.

I think hardly any adult would disagree with the above paragraph; much of the complexity of ethics comes from the fact that any individual lives as a part of several different groups. People feel loyalty to these various different groups to different degrees. Family is a very important group to most people, and it seems that loyalty to close genetic relatives is hardwired deep into our instincts. But we feel loyalty to other groups beyond family, such as our neighbors, our local community, our nation, our ethnic group, our religion, our coworkers, and others. Prioritizing which groups should come first can be hard to do in a sensible way.

They'll be part of that group of one, also. But if the group of one depends a great deal on the larger group, or gains lots of personal benefit by joining and following the larger group's morals, then the group's moral code and the individual's moral code will begin to overlap.

Same goes for nations or ethnic groups that trade with one another. They'll start converging their ethics in order to further the relationship. In ancient times sometimes a whole nation would choose to adopt the religion of its neighbor in order to better achieve this.

We take following things in the account:
1. Moral Values
2. Social Norms
3. Is this thing legal or illegal
4. What will your family think about it?
5. Guilt
6. Future outcomes of your action

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by danhanegan

To me, the primary purpose of codes of behavior, whether legally codified or simply part of a culture's customary expectations, is to enable people to function more efficiently in groups. In this context, "wrong" is usually that behavior which places one's self interest ahead of the interest of the group, whereas "right" is that behavior that places the interests of other members of the group at least equal with, and possibly ahead of, one's own interest. Groups whose members consistently support each other's interests perform more efficiently than groups of individuals who look primarily after their own self interest. The term "enlightened self interest" largely refers to this behavior. A key understanding of ethics is reached when people grasp that they are better off as part of a mutually supporting group than as selfish individuals; placing the interests of others ahead of your own is to your own benefit because it encourages those others to do the same.

An individual is a group of one. I think that this definition works, so long as we understand that "right" and "wrong" as defined by any large group will be whatever is perceived to be best for that group.

An individual might have their own definition. But usually when we talk about "morality" we're talking about moral codes that have a large following, not just one person's own moral code. The moral codes with large followings are usually going to be based on group morality.

I think hardly any adult would disagree with the above paragraph; much of the complexity of ethics comes from the fact that any individual lives as a part of several different groups. People feel loyalty to these various different groups to different degrees. Family is a very important group to most people, and it seems that loyalty to close genetic relatives is hardwired deep into our instincts. But we feel loyalty to other groups beyond family, such as our neighbors, our local community, our nation, our ethnic group, our religion, our coworkers, and others. Prioritizing which groups should come first can be hard to do in a sensible way.

They'll be part of that group of one, also. But if the group of one depends a great deal on the larger group, or gains lots of personal benefit by joining and following the larger group's morals, then the group's moral code and the individual's moral code will begin to overlap.

Same goes for nations or ethnic groups that trade with one another. They'll start converging their ethics in order to further the relationship. In ancient times sometimes a whole nation would choose to adopt the religion of its neighbor in order to better achieve this.

If the one decides, it can be detrimental to the group, if the group decides it can be detrimental to the one, in those instances right or wrong depends on majority, or minority.

Originally Posted by Stargate

in those instances right or wrong depends on majority, or minority.

No, it doesn't.
As has been pointed out a number of times "right" and "wrong" is a consensus.
(Although there are caveats).

Originally Posted by Trivium

you could always shove it into the Felicific calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At first glance, i thought this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears that Bentham was serious.

Variables, or vectors, of the pleasures and pains included in this calculation, which Bentham called "circumstances'",^[1] were:

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

I wonder how we would apply this to a eugenics scheme, say killing off some people with genetic disorders. You would have to make some subjective judgments about the people you are eliminating. How much pain are they suffering due to their genetic disorders? Maybe our eugenics program is not causing pain at all, but putting them out of their misery. We may well come out on the plus side of the hedons/dolors equation, even without counting future extent - all the people in the future who would be born without the defect, and the benefit to society by not having to take care of them. You'd need some kind of crystal ball to figure it out, but in the end, the eugenics scheme could well come out a winner.

There is no difference between right and wrong, there is only cause and effect.

Parallell universe A: Bob becomes a priest, helping the poor and orphans his entire life.
Parallell universe B: Bob becomes a serial killer, slaughtering over 50 people.

On a cosmological timeframe, the existence of our planet and all that occurs here probably measures up to one corn of sand in the Sahara desert. Everything that happens in our brief, enclosed and insignificant existence will - in a blink of an eye - be gone and forgotten including all actions ever done by any human being.

Morals and ethics has changed alot over time and is nothing more than a human made concept. Allthough one could consider morals and ethics as a societal tool for survival in a pragmatic sense. Take Friedrich's take on moralism where he looks at it in a slave/master perspective. It would seem that the current moral code is that of slave morality (Help the weak = good. The strong = bad just for being strong. Strong not helping the weak = "evil") etc. There is ofcourse different thoughts on right and wrong from culture to culture etc. so right and wrong is purely subjective and not an objective truth.

In Iran there is death penalty for drinking alcohol. In my eyes, that is evil/wrong. But they might consider us wrongdoers and selfdestructive for allowing the population to poisen themselves.
Also take sensitive issues like abortion. In my opinion, depriving a woman her right of choice to take an abortion (freedom of choice over your own body) is pure evil, and no society has the right to call themselves a democracy by enforcing no-abortion-laws. However in the US, I believe ( correct me if Im wrong) some states has laws against abortion. A good indicator of religious influence in moral code and such.

So... how do we define right from wrong? You cant. Because there are ALOT of variables when it comes to what people considers right and wrong subjectively. Even within the same race, culture, gender and agegroup you can find huge differences in the subjective opinions of what they consider right vs wrong.

Objectively - there is no right and wrong ofcourse. Easiest way to prove that is with a very simple thought experiment. Lets image that there has been billions of intelligent species in the time of our universe. Each with different genetic traits and so on. There is simply no way all these different species could possibly have had the same moral code of behaviour and views on right vs wrong. Thus, there is no objective "truth" or absolute to right and wrong.

Which is a good thing. Why? Because subjective differences of opinion (opposed to universally objective "answer") may mean more conflict and strife, but that also allows freedom, adaption and evolution of these codes.

Conclusion:

1) Subjectively the idea of right and wrong differs from religious, cultural and a multitude of other factors and can not be defined - because that would be like defining good vs bad taste when it comes to art, or defining good vs bad taste when it comes to food.

2) Objectively right and wrong does not apply and moral nihilism is most likely true. Meaning no action is inherently evil or good, these are human-invented terms.

3) Short term effect of the value of right vs wrong (The value of moral and ethical codes) are: To serve as a societal tool that directs the behaviour of humans in a constructive and productive way of coexisting (personal definition)

4) Long term (Millions of years+) effect of these values are irellevant, because these codes exists in finite and closed environments (lifetime of planets) that are born and die in a cosmological millisecond. All values created are thus eradicated with the species that dies when the planet die.

Originally Posted by Raziell

There is no difference between right and wrong, there is only cause and effect.

Parallell universe A: Bob becomes a priest, helping the poor and orphans his entire life.
Parallell universe B: Bob becomes a serial killer, slaughtering over 50 people.

On a cosmological timeframe, the existence of our planet and all that occurs here probably measures up to one corn of sand in the Sahara desert. Everything that happens in our brief, enclosed and insignificant existence will - in a blink of an eye - be gone and forgotten including all actions ever done by any human being.

Morals and ethics has changed alot over time and is nothing more than a human made concept. Allthough one could consider morals and ethics as a societal tool for survival in a pragmatic sense. Take Friedrich's take on moralism where he looks at it in a slave/master perspective. It would seem that the current moral code is that of slave morality (Help the weak = good. The strong = bad just for being strong. Strong not helping the weak = "evil") etc. There is ofcourse different thoughts on right and wrong from culture to culture etc. so right and wrong is purely subjective and not an objective truth.

In Iran there is death penalty for drinking alcohol. In my eyes, that is evil/wrong. But they might consider us wrongdoers and selfdestructive for allowing the population to poisen themselves.
Also take sensitive issues like abortion. In my opinion, depriving a woman her right of choice to take an abortion (freedom of choice over your own body) is pure evil, and no society has the right to call themselves a democracy by enforcing no-abortion-laws. However in the US, I believe ( correct me if Im wrong) some states has laws against abortion. A good indicator of religious influence in moral code and such.

So... how do we define right from wrong? You cant. Because there are ALOT of variables when it comes to what people considers right and wrong subjectively. Even within the same race, culture, gender and agegroup you can find huge differences in the subjective opinions of what they consider right vs wrong.

Objectively - there is no right and wrong ofcourse. Easiest way to prove that is with a very simple thought experiment. Lets image that there has been billions of intelligent species in the time of our universe. Each with different genetic traits and so on. There is simply no way all these different species could possibly have had the same moral code of behaviour and views on right vs wrong. Thus, there is no objective "truth" or absolute to right and wrong.

Which is a good thing. Why? Because subjective differences of opinion (opposed to universally objective "answer") may mean more conflict and strife, but that also allows freedom, adaption and evolution of these codes.

Conclusion:

1) Subjectively the idea of right and wrong differs from religious, cultural and a multitude of other factors and can not be defined - because that would be like defining good vs bad taste when it comes to art, or defining good vs bad taste when it comes to food.

2) Objectively right and wrong does not apply and moral nihilism is most likely true. Meaning no action is inherently evil or good, these are human-invented terms.

3) Short term effect of the value of right vs wrong (The value of moral and ethical codes) are: To serve as a societal tool that directs the behaviour of humans in a constructive and productive way of coexisting (personal definition)

4) Long term (Millions of years+) effect of these values are irellevant, because these codes exists in finite and closed environments (lifetime of planets) that are born and die in a cosmological millisecond. All values created are thus eradicated with the species that dies when the planet die.

If our ancestors believed in most of which is written in the above post I doubt that our world would have made it this far (considering the presence of violence in human's nature and many other factors) and we would probably never would have came into existence. I like the signature though "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.", but it contradicts the post unless one believes that lying is morally neither right nor wrong and he/she teaches his/her children to lie for the benefit of the self.

One way to look at it is that there is no right vs wrong. There is only the way things should be. Any deviation from this is not necessarily wrong, but unsustainable, in which over time will be self-correcting. Anything we feel is not sustainable for the overall growth of society is what we perceive as wrong. Specific punishments and recognition of such wrongdoings is characteristic of the society you are a part of. Over time, better practices of what should be (or the right way of doing things) arise. This is why laws change, sometimes even being the exact opposite of what was originally stated.

Kind of vague, but just a quick thought I had about the subject haha

Originally Posted by CultureHead

One way to look at it is that there is no right vs wrong. There is only the way things should be.

What?
What "defines" the way things should be?

Any deviation from this is not necessarily wrong, but unsustainable, in which over time will be self-correcting.

Evidence?

Anything we feel is not sustainable for the overall growth of society is what we perceive as wrong.

Anything we feel?
So it's subjective: as has been said.

Ok i'll have ago at this,

Person: A, B

If we define ethics (as most do) as value judgement then we can define what is ethically right or wrong as those actions imposed on us that we agree or disagree with (bare with me with this, starting from the premise that individuals make the judgement as to what is or not ethical).

A disagrees with B's actions against A (A disagrees with B trying to kill A)
However if A steals from B and B defends themselves by acting on A (using violence) we have a problem, because A would disagree with Bs actions and B would disagree with As actions (both would think the other was wrong).
Therefore there needs to be another party to impose right and wrong (even if this third party is the conscience of A or B).

I don't know if i've expressed this articulately and I just did this of the top of my head so if there's a major hole in my logic: damn.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by CultureHead

One way to look at it is that there is no right vs wrong. There is only the way things should be.

What?
What "defines" the way things should be?

Any deviation from this is not necessarily wrong, but unsustainable, in which over time will be self-correcting.

Evidence?

Anything we feel is not sustainable for the overall growth of society is what we perceive as wrong.

Anything we feel?
So it's subjective: as has been said.

Yes, it's all subjective. But based upon the idea that we all come from one source, it is essentially the same subjectivity. I look at it as a "gut feeling" for what you determine to be what "should be."

I do not have any hard evidence, but a simple example is the first realization that murders is not good for the growth of society so it in turn became illegal and punishable.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Ok i'll have ago at this,

Person: A, B

If we define ethics (as most do) as value judgement then we can define what is ethically right or wrong as those actions imposed on us that we agree or disagree with (bare with me with this, starting from the premise that individuals make the judgement as to what is or not ethical).

A disagrees with B's actions against A (A disagrees with B trying to kill A)
However if A steals from B and B defends themselves by acting on A (using violence) we have a problem, because A would disagree with Bs actions and B would disagree with As actions (both would think the other was wrong).
Therefore there needs to be another party to impose right and wrong (even if this third party is the conscience of A or B).

I don't know if i've expressed this articulately and I just did this of the top of my head so if there's a major hole in my logic: damn.

A and B would both think the other is wrong, however judging other's action is not the only way to differentiate between right and wrong. what each really feels about his own action, regardless of what he tries to portray to others to justify his action, is what I think more accurately differentiates the two. Inner awareness of right and wrong is what our conscience all about, though many times is ignored by us.

Most people believe in objective morality since it scares them to believe the opposite.

But then there is no law of the universe stating otherwise. No human moral DNA. So it's arbitrarily made by humans.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

in those instances right or wrong depends on majority, or minority.

No, it doesn't.
As has been pointed out a number of times "right" and "wrong" is a consensus.
(Although there are caveats).

And not everybody believes in the "consensus". KKK members/white supremacists don't endorse the non-racist US "consensus".

That said, morality doesn't exist. it's a fool errand as anything goes in life.

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

Most people believe in objective morality since it scares them to believe the opposite.

But then there is no law of the universe stating otherwise. No human moral DNA. So it's arbitrarily made by humans.

What is objective morality? Do you mean an inborn morality?

There's no such thing, at least beyond our minds. But from a social perspective, yes. Are there politics or not? We define them, and they are flexible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Does a story exist? Yes. Ethics exist, but keep in mind that they are fake like books and different people live in different mental realities.

Also, I read recently that in 200,000 years time, there may be another ice age. At our current of evolution, this would be disastrous, and would destroy much infrastructure. And in 500,000 years, the Earth may be hit by an asteroid causing a mass extinction of Cambrian/Creataceous levels.

So who really gives a damn about morals? Yes, 200,000 years is a long time in the future, and we may have progressed technologically to the point an ice age wouldn't be overly detrimental. However, to me this shows the vastness and tenuousness of the universe. In many billions of years, what we as a species may have done is immaterial.

So nihilism is the true absolute IMO.

It is all empty and meaningless!
SO WHAT?!?!
Ah, there is the question, So what indeed!

Nihilism indicates that the only meaning your life has is the meaning you give it yourself.
So to be a Nihilist requires you to live as meaningful a life for you, according to your values, as you can.

Not many people are self responsible, self actuated, enough to become Nihilists and instead live out their lives relying on others to validate the meaning they should be determining for themselves.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

It is all empty and meaningless!
SO WHAT?!?!
Ah, there is the question, So what indeed!

Nihilism indicates that the only meaning your life has is the meaning you give it yourself.
So to be a Nihilist requires you to live as meaningful a life for you, according to your values, as you can.

Not many people are self responsible, self actuated, enough to become Nihilists and instead live out their lives relying on others to validate the meaning they should be determining for themselves.

And? Look, the world isn't pretty, get with reality. It's common fact that people do as they please in life, without recourse to "rules" or "order".

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Raziell

There is no difference between right and wrong, there is only cause and effect.

Parallell universe A: Bob becomes a priest, helping the poor and orphans his entire life.
Parallell universe B: Bob becomes a serial killer, slaughtering over 50 people.

On a cosmological timeframe, the existence of our planet and all that occurs here probably measures up to one corn of sand in the Sahara desert. Everything that happens in our brief, enclosed and insignificant existence will - in a blink of an eye - be gone and forgotten including all actions ever done by any human being.

Morals and ethics has changed alot over time and is nothing more than a human made concept. Allthough one could consider morals and ethics as a societal tool for survival in a pragmatic sense. Take Friedrich's take on moralism where he looks at it in a slave/master perspective. It would seem that the current moral code is that of slave morality (Help the weak = good. The strong = bad just for being strong. Strong not helping the weak = "evil") etc. There is ofcourse different thoughts on right and wrong from culture to culture etc. so right and wrong is purely subjective and not an objective truth.

In Iran there is death penalty for drinking alcohol. In my eyes, that is evil/wrong. But they might consider us wrongdoers and selfdestructive for allowing the population to poisen themselves.
Also take sensitive issues like abortion. In my opinion, depriving a woman her right of choice to take an abortion (freedom of choice over your own body) is pure evil, and no society has the right to call themselves a democracy by enforcing no-abortion-laws. However in the US, I believe ( correct me if Im wrong) some states has laws against abortion. A good indicator of religious influence in moral code and such.

So... how do we define right from wrong? You cant. Because there are ALOT of variables when it comes to what people considers right and wrong subjectively. Even within the same race, culture, gender and agegroup you can find huge differences in the subjective opinions of what they consider right vs wrong.

Objectively - there is no right and wrong ofcourse. Easiest way to prove that is with a very simple thought experiment. Lets image that there has been billions of intelligent species in the time of our universe. Each with different genetic traits and so on. There is simply no way all these different species could possibly have had the same moral code of behaviour and views on right vs wrong. Thus, there is no objective "truth" or absolute to right and wrong.

Which is a good thing. Why? Because subjective differences of opinion (opposed to universally objective "answer") may mean more conflict and strife, but that also allows freedom, adaption and evolution of these codes.

Conclusion:

1) Subjectively the idea of right and wrong differs from religious, cultural and a multitude of other factors and can not be defined - because that would be like defining good vs bad taste when it comes to art, or defining good vs bad taste when it comes to food.

2) Objectively right and wrong does not apply and moral nihilism is most likely true. Meaning no action is inherently evil or good, these are human-invented terms.

3) Short term effect of the value of right vs wrong (The value of moral and ethical codes) are: To serve as a societal tool that directs the behaviour of humans in a constructive and productive way of coexisting (personal definition)

4) Long term (Millions of years+) effect of these values are irellevant, because these codes exists in finite and closed environments (lifetime of planets) that are born and die in a cosmological millisecond. All values created are thus eradicated with the species that dies when the planet die.

If our ancestors believed in most of which is written in the above post I doubt that our world would have made it this far (considering the presence of violence in human's nature and many other factors) and we would probably never would have came into existence. I like the signature though "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.", but it contradicts the post unless one believes that lying is morally neither right nor wrong and he/she teaches his/her children to lie for the benefit of the self.

Yet we have, violence notwithstanding. We survived wars, atrocities, and not wars and atrocities still occur today.

The fact is that who or what determines an absolute morality? There is no universal law mandating this.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Right is what works and wrong is what does not work.
When a lion eats a lamb the lion thinks it is right but the lamb thinks it is very very wrong.

Well yeah, apply sapient reasoning to lions, who evolved eating animals for millions of years...

Originally Posted by wegs

I’ve often interpreted it to mean what I wouldn’t want ‘done’ unto me, would be perceived as a ‘wrong,’ and what I would do unto others in kindness, generosity, etc…as a ‘right.’ (or simply not harming them, as a ‘right’)

Example: I wouldn’t want someone to steal from me, so then, naturally, I shouldn’t exhibit that type of behavior, either. I think that many criminal minded people are socio/psychopaths and those types of ‘disordered’ people, lack a well formed conscience. They may however know right from wrong, they simply don’t care. But, many (most?) people on average, who have well-formed consciences, have an innate sense of right and wrong (and a sense of caring), as I indicate above, if for no other reason, than to treat those around you, as you wish to be treated.

Understanding right from wrong can be subjective in nature, but we all have needs and boundaries, and when people cross over those boundaries, we take notice. So, even if you have no utter objective sense of right and wrong (if there is such a thing), you could establish your own ‘code of conduct’ based on what you deem appropriate and acceptable, in terms of how people treat you. That seems simple enough, right?

Doesn't conscience come in different measures?

Originally Posted by charvaka

Since right and wrong relative,they are defined by people based on their own mindsets.Something right to me is may be wrong to you and vice versa. Some thing right to peoples of a culture may be wrong to other cultures etc.For example(I don't want to criticize anyone's beliefs)having multiple wives is common thing in some countries(like middle east)and in some cultures and religions but it is a crime in some countries like our country(India) etc . So people define right from wrong based on their mindsets but those mind sets are defined by their social,cultural,economic backgrounds.From time to time these definitions change and what right once upon a time may be wrong today and what is wrong today may be right tomorrow.(for example mothers used to mate with sons in early human civilizations but today it would be intolerable crime(at least to me)).When cultural,social and economical changes occur many things change even food habits for example when we have money we will eat good food and eating out of garbage cans may be wrong but when we live on streets and hungry with no money we will try anything to satisfy that hunger even eating out garbage can is possible.so what I want to say is right and wrong are relational and both are a paradox they do not exist(but we have to fallow the traditions and customs of society we live in so we too define right from wrong as our society do that) do you think right and wrong exist? ​

No, they don't.

Though what is right and wrong is a loose consensus in a given community. 200 years ago, it was acceptable to flog criminals (even those who committed petty crimes). Today, it's not. In the future, it may be again (perhaps soon, who knows?) Morality is spend, doesn't exist, and like all other things in life is utterly transient.

Morality is spend, doesn't exist, and like all other things in life is utterly transient.

I do not exist, because I am transient. Heck, Life forms dont exist because they change overtime, therefore I can bathe in the crocodile pit as if there are no crocodiles because as transient organism they dont exits. Ouch , oooo, ah, help!

You could argue there are no numbers in nature, but the concept exist and is useful, our brain is able to perceive aspects of reality that our senses do not*, even if IV is not written the same as 4. (* no doctor could observe the cause of cholera in London a long time ago, but using statistics and their brain to interpret concepts, statisticians were able to perceive that the topographic elevation was a factor and figure out that sewers interacting with water pipes caused a problem. This ability to use concepts in this case saved the lives of many people.)

I agree that flogging a starving person because he stole a piece of bread is no longer viewed in the same way as it once did, I even think that aspects of our current civilization we perceive to be normal(ex: money,hierarchy and secrecy, for example) will be seen with the same disgust in the future as we(most of us anyway) have for slavery. What needs to be considered imo, is that human understanding is changing as observations and new information builds up, science cant be said to not exist because what we know now is different then what we did not in the feudal ages. The progression of changes in understanding/evaluation of information is not uniform across the planet because the reality/environment/cultural history/etc is diversified as are channels of communications, so its normal to have variations and differences in progression about morality/values etc, that doesnt mean these do not exist.


Heres a few basic tips to help differentiate right from wrong that I am willing to share;
If you find yourself next to a pilot in an airplane, and wonder if its good or bad to beat him up with a caveman's club;
1- Use the golden rule, would you want to be bashed in the head? No? Then probably its wrong.
2- Is the bashing of the pilots head causing interference? Yes, his ability to allow everyone to reach their destination without crashing in a field will be impaired by being unconscious, therefore you might consider this to be wrong on those grounds. This could in turn also interfere with passengers that had other functions to perform other than decomposing prematurely.
3- Is society better off if most people do that. Sometimes negative impacts cannot be perceived on a small scale that you relate to from personal observations but are problematic on a large scale. If most/many people did that on a large scale, travelling would be interfered with and it would reduce the mobility which is not better in general. If something is causing problems on a large scale while being unnecessary or of marginal benefit on a small scale then I might be considered to be wrong from that perspective. Like pulling your pants down and taking a sh#te on the sidewalk for no reason might not appear to be problematic at face value, but then if half the population did this you could not walk without constantly watching your step (as is the case with dog poo in a/some cities) and the first moment of inattention will mean you step in sh#te, so by this third principle you could evaluate that taking a sh#te a sidewalk is considered wrong.

Yes, there are morals. But then I won't condone wanton harm towards others. I'm not a monster or sociopath.

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

I won't condone wanton harm towards others. I'm not a monster or sociopath.

But it's society that's told you it's morally wrong to hurt others and you don't give a lick what society has to say!

And?

People contradict, but then yeah, ME doing so offends you, lol.. like I care what your spiritual guru told you as a youngster. I believe I can do as I please, not that I'm "fated" to do anything. That offends you deeply I know (not based on any reason, but merely narcissism) but I don't need to care what some stranger says or thinks...

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

People contradict, but then yeah, ME doing so offends you, lol..

No it doesn't. I have no emotional investment whatsoever in what you say or do.

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

like I care what your spiritual guru told you as a youngster.

I have no idea what that means. If you're referring to a church leader, I didn't go to church. If you're referring to some kind of magical animal guide, I don't have one. If you're referring to a Mike Meyers character, I never saw that movie.

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

I believe I can do as I please, not that I'm "fated" to do anything.

Okay. I doubt you'll find many people here that believe in fate, either. Not really sure what that has to do with anything, though...

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

That offends you deeply I know (not based on any reason, but merely narcissism) but I don't need to care what some stranger says or thinks...

I'm not narcissistic and I question whether you even understand the meaning of that word. Is there a reason you're so mad at the world? Did your mother tell you to clean your room and we get the hear your little tirade about it?

lol.. I don't believe all of that.

Just as per prior comments, you're all upset that I contradict (like I care if you're upset lol.. I don't need to be), yet many others here do. It's the flagrant baseless double standard here that gets me laughing/amused, since it's plucked from thin air and without grounding. If babe or whoever can contradict, I don't give a shit if you find that offensive or not, the emotional regulation of others doesn't affect me.

He really, really hopes his immature pontificating will offend someone. Instead, it is just sad.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by sarnamluvu

like I care what your spiritual guru told you as a youngster.

I have no idea what that means. If you're referring to a church leader, I didn't go to church. If you're referring to some kind of magical animal guide, I don't have one. If you're referring to a Mike Meyers character, I never saw that movie.

Nobody should see The Love Guru (2008). It was so appallingly bad that it ruined Myers' career.

hope? lol..

No, again you all make me laugh. actually continue...it's too rich.