Right And Wrong

[Berkley Babes]

How would you define these two?

Is it as simple as majority rules?

Or ...

Is more inherent than that? How so?

[MagsJ]

Why the need to know?

[Berkley Babes]

Um, ah . . . My mental health doctor wants me to write a paper on it and I'm looking for some type of shortcut input . . . yeah, that.

[Berkley Babes]

that was a joke for the criminally insane.

[surreptitious75]

Two points at opposite ends of the spectrum with lots of fuzz in between

[Dan~]

How would you define these two?

Is it as simple as majority rules?

Or ...

Is more inherent than that? How so?

Best and worst, not right and wrong.
Something can be amazing, but a person can say, out of fear for example, that this great thing is evil.
Best doesn't need permission to exist.
Best is similar to strongest, or most potent in the world where in it exists.

[attano]

How would you define these two?

Is it as simple as majority rules?

Or ...

Is more inherent than that? How so?

I guess that right and wrong, like being, have multiple meanings.
One is certainly 'as majority rules', or rather a perceived common wisdom, as opinion polls are not (yet) so instantaneous.
Then, something having a harmful outcome, notably to the person who expresses the judgement, is probably inherently wrong. And yet not necessarily, 'rights' can be conflicting and, in fact, they frequently are. Greek tragedies are most often about that, the conflict of two parties that are both right. Antigone would be a good example.

[Anomaleigh]

Right and wrong are kind of like the colors red and blue, you know them when you see them, but try explaining the difference between them to a colorblind man i.e. psychopath, it's unpossible.

[Prismatic567]

How would you define these two?
Is it as simple as majority rules?
Or ...
Is more inherent than that? How so?

It a very complicated topic.
Hitler's interpretation of "right" is obvious morally "wrong" from humanity's perspective.

It is a question that is related to Morality and Ethics.

[b]Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/morality[/b]

There are two main approaches to 'Morality'. i.e.

Descriptive definitions of “morality”
“morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual.

Normative definitions of “morality”
Those who use “morality” normatively hold that morality is (or would be) the code that meets the following condition: all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Any definition of “morality” in the descriptive sense will need to specify which of the codes put forward by a society or group count as moral. Even in small homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are sometimes made between morality, etiquette, law, and religion. And in larger and more complex societies these distinctions are often sharply marked. So “morality” cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society.

In the normative sense, “morality” refers to a code of conduct that would be accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions, almost always including the condition of being rational. That a person meets these conditions is typically expressed by saying that the person counts as a moral agent.
However, merely showing that a certain code would be accepted by any moral agent is not enough to show that the code is the moral code.
It might well be that all moral agents would also accept a code of prudence or rationality, but this would not by itself show that prudence was part of morality.

To ensure a moral code is a moral code per se, there is a need to ensured it is a Justified True Moral Belief, or moral fact that is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning with a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

For more details look up ThinkDr's links.
viewtopic.php?p=2766016#p2766016
https://currikicdn.s3-us-west-2.amazona ... 482dfe.pdf

[Fixed Cross]

How would you define these two?

Is it as simple as majority rules?

Or ...

Is more inherent than that? How so?

Dependent on a desired outcome, mostly.

If you want to go forward, walking backward is the wrong way to go about it. Unless you walk very far.

I wonder if anyone has ever walked around the Earth backward. He'd also have to walk over water, which is hard enough to do in forward direction.

Exciting ideas.

[Meno_]

Think of it this way. Robinson Crusoe on Friday.

A feral child.
The wolf mother dies, and the child bereft,


They both know .

!

Instinctively. No words.


. !go! . ~ dot


.(dot).

[Meno_]

Think of it this way. Robinson Crusoe on Friday.

A feral child.
The wolf mother dies, and the child bereft,


They both know .

(!!! !! !!! ! gogogog. ! !!! !! !!!)

Instinctively. No words.


. !go! . ~ dot


.(dot).

??

[Meno_]

Think of it this way. Robinson Crusoe on Friday.

A feral child.
The wolf mother dies, and the child bereft,


They both know .

(!!! !! !!! ! gogogog. ! !!! !! !!!)

Instinctively. No words.


. !go! . ~ dot


.(dot).

go dot- a guy comes up to a waiter and asks him what he is waiting for.


he says my dinner , its my day off.

[Fixed Cross]

Think of it this way. Robinson Crusoe on Friday.

Exactly.

[Meno_]

https://youtu.be/OPV2m1PoufM

[thinkdr]

How would you define these two?

The Unified Theory of Ethics - the new paradigm for ethical theory and practice - defines them contextually this way:

IT is right to be good and to do good.

It is wrong to be bad and to do bad.

And, of course, earlier it defines "good" and "bad." R.S. Hartman gets the credit for tthis breakrhrough: He defined good, in context, as:
x is a good C if and only if x is a C, Cs are a,b,c,d, etc. and x is a; x is b; x is c, xis d, etc. C here is the concept under which x falls.(i.e., x is a class member pf C

In plain English, an item is good if it has everything it is supposed to have under the concept you put on it. "The name sets the norm." A person is good if he or she has the features of what you would describe as a good character. All this is spelled out in more detail in the papers in the signature below, to which links are offered.

Someone, or something -- a specific instance or example of a concept -- is bad if more than half the properties of its concept are missing as an empirical fact.


A good "nag"is a bad horse. A good "murdere"r is a bad person. The name sets the norm.

Questions? Comments?




I

[Berkley Babes]

How would you define these two?

The Unified Theory of Ethics - the new paradigm for ethical theory and practice - defines them contextually this way:

IT is right to be good and to do good.

It is wrong to be bad and to do bad.

And, of course, earlier it defines "good" and "bad." R.S. Hartman gets the credit for tthis breakrhrough: He defined good, in context, as:
x is a good C if and only if x is a C, Cs are a,b,c,d, etc. and x is a; x is b; x is c, xis d, etc. C here is the concept under which x falls.(i.e., x is a class member pf C

In plain English, an item is good if it has everything it is supposed to have under the concept you put on it. "The name sets the norm." A person is good if he or she has the features of what you would describe as a good character. All this is spelled out in more detail in the papers in the signature below, to which links are offered.

Someone, or something -- a specific instance or example of a concept -- is bad if more than half the properties of its concept are missing as an empirical fact.


A good "nag"is a bad horse. A good "murdere"r is a bad person. The name sets the norm.

Questions? Comments?




I

Well, oxygen or quality air is Good since I need it to breathe. But let's say in some version of an afterlife I no longer needed to breathe. And I find that not needing to breathe is better than any type of air from my previous life. Was the air really that Good?

Thanks for your answer, but I have to counter, names are provisional.

[thinkdr]

How would you define these two?

The Unified Theory of Ethics - the new paradigm for ethical theory and practice - defines them contextually this way:

IT is right to be good and to do good.

It is wrong to be bad and to do bad.

And, of course, earlier it defines "good" and "bad." R.S. Hartman gets the credit for tthis breakrhrough: He defined good, in context, as:
x is a good C if and only if x is a C, Cs are a,b,c,d, etc. and x is a; x is b; x is c, xis d, etc. C here is the concept under which x falls.(i.e., x is a class member pf C

In plain English, an item is good if it has everything it is supposed to have under the concept you put on it. "The name sets the norm." A person is good if he or she has the features of what you would describe as a good character. All this is spelled out in more detail in the papers in the signature below, to which links are offered.

Someone, or something -- a specific instance or example of a concept -- is bad if more than half the properties of its concept are missing as an empirical fact.


A good "nag"is a bad horse. A good "murderer" is a bad person. The name sets the norm.

Questions? Comments?




I

Well, oxygen or quality air is Good since I need it to breathe. But let's say in some version of an afterlife I no longer needed to breathe. And I find that not needing to breathe is better than any type of air from my previous life. Was the air really that Good?

Thanks for your answer, but I have to counter, names are provisional.[/quote
You ask: "Was the air rally that Good"

Ill answer that one during your afterlife.

Right now any response I give would be too hypothetical.

I might add that I interpreted your question given in the original post as moral right and moral wrong. I took it in the ethical sense. There is, of course, other meanings for those words. Right could mean correct; wrong could mean incorrect. Right could mean: a direction or side pf one's body, as opposed to the left side of one's body. And 'wrong' could mean: false. Etc.

If you meant ethical right and wrong, what is your evaluation of my answer:

It is right to be good and to do good.

And it is wrong not to.

[Berkley Babes]

I'll wait until the afterlife then.

[MagsJ]

Um, ah . . . My mental health doctor wants me to write a paper on it and I'm looking for some type of shortcut input . . . yeah, that.

Rta

[Fixed Cross]

Rta

I see you are advancing.

[MagsJ]

Rta

I see you are advancing.

I was born of it and in it.. I’m quite the Deva, you know. But then there’s also the Western version of it, to which I also belong..

The concept is beyond religion.. it is irreligious.. it is born from people, not things.

[Fixed Cross]

It is what my self-valuing Logick enacts as a philosophical method.

[MagsJ]

It is what my self-valuing Logick enacts as a philosophical method.

I think that self-valuing is innate or no, as is evident in human nature and interactions.. I don’t interact with others much.. I’ve met 100s of 1000s, I haven’t met 100s of 1000s.. what am I? a dichotomy of terms.

About my life!

[Magnus Anderson]

If you want to go forward, walking backward is the wrong way to go about it. Unless you walk very far.

Case closed.