Is There a Right and Wrong?



Change my mind or agree with me below. :grinning:




Lay it on me, @Crane. Give me more.



For me, “right” and “wrong” have a directional quality. ‘Wrong” are things that lead to suffering. “Right” are things that lead to lasting peace.


Truth rarely conscribes to a binary system. Right and wrong is a subjective continuum, the strength and importance of this judgement depends on a person’s point of view, attachment to the situation, and distance from it. Right for the lion is very wrong for the antelope, but to me it’s just a natural order of things.


Context and the ability for animals to reason aside, you agree?


Of course not, but I don’t call completely disagree either.


Saying all this, surely even if it’s dependent on the situation, per person, this mere fact shows that there’s objective right? I.e. the fact that you can even recognise a good for each thing, at each different moment or context implies already an understanding of what the good is?


To answer the first question, yes, there is a right and wrong. Eternal and natural. Right is what is appropriate, and wrong is what is inappropriate.


I’m glad you decided to give me an answer instead of just sharing your Tinder profile pic. :innocent:

More, please. Perhaps give me an example which you would assume is widely considered true. Make a right/wrong statement based on your Tinder adventures.


Depends where we start from. Morality provides context for progression in the human subjective experience. What is right and what is wrong has no objectivity. But through the question itself, rules and structures are built…based on agreed upon consciousness. This is the objective outcome of right and wrong. But what is right and what is wrong is dependent on interpretation. If your asking me as a human with a natural need for fulfillment within the human experience, then yes I believe in a right and wrong.


If right was really right, there’d be no need to discuss it.


Why? Discussion clears up our concepts and opinions of things. Just because we don’t have a clear comprehension of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that we don’t have comprehension of part of it. I.e. the fact that we don’t have a clear absolute definition of what a dog is doesn’t mean that our opinions are not to an extent a true account of what a dog (to a degree) and that these accounts are better and worse in comprehension. It seems to be a mistake of a modernity (and contemporary times) to mistake the fact that we can’t have ‘certainty’ of something as meaning that we cannot know something adequately.


DM for pics.

I pretend to be interested in their lives when I’m not because it’s appropriate for the purpose of my intention, which is in turn appropriate for fulfilling my natural ends.


From the supposition of no absolute right and wrong, and the recognition that others may have a different opinion, then we can discuss/haggle over right and wrong without crystallizing it into dogma.


If there’s no absolute standard, or absolute instance, then how is discussion of it possible at all? If there’s no standard and absolute ideal than all chatter is masturbatory. Opinions and words never hitting the real.

But my point is that even if there is an absolute standard of right it may be necessary to discuss it because it’s not clear that an absolute standard actualises without our understanding of it. It may tho.


Your last sentence is interesting.


If it’s interesting to you than I will leave as is for the benefit of your own interpretation. I don’t want to ruin it for you by adding my subjectivity. Lol


Sprinkle some subjectivity on me. That sounds bad. I was trying to be funny, but it doesn’t work for me.

Please elaborate on your thoughts, @Sammy.