Right and Wrong Options

[elaboratedream]

Lets start this out by saying that I don't want this to turn into a debate about religion. We have FAR too many of those.


As a society, we have a detailed code of what is right and what is wrong. Laws are put in place to try to discourage people from doing something that is "wrong."

But where do these concepts of right and wrong come from? Don't say that it comes from some sort of higher power. First, that's all bs, but more importantly, these concepts of right and wrong have been around far longer than any modern religions.

What makes something right? More importantly, what makes something wrong?

discuss.

[Spirited Away]

Something I wrote relevant to one aspect of the topic at hand.... so repost! Yay!

For a number of people, I agree that societal pressure may play reason to their conforming to philanthropy. For a few others, I truly believe altruism is instinct.

Each society is made up of individuals who generally carry similar thoughts of what is fair and what is moral (though not always). I think this societal pressure can be explain if we focus on the smaller picture: indviduals. Individuals may display concern for others for selfish reasons or purely for the sake of what is right. Rightness in this case, I think, comes from experience: past and present, and I agree with you that the instinct to survive does influence how we act upon these circumstances. For example, people may want to rid starvation in Africa because it feels right. Why does it feels right? Because any kind of obstruction to our survival is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because since our inception and experiencing life, our innate goal is the continuation of it thus.

[cori-catastrophe]

First, that's all bs,

opinions.
anyways, laws are obviously here to keep people from doing certain things. without laws or rules, people would run around without having any restrictions and they'd do whatever they wanted without getting in trouble. of course, they'd always have their regrets in the back of their minds.
i'd describe something right as something that harms no one in any way, shape, or form. the oppposite for wrong.

[elaboratedream]

opinions.
anyways, laws are obviously here to keep people from doing certain things. without laws or rules, people would run around without having any restrictions and they'd do whatever they wanted without getting in trouble. of course, they'd always have their regrets in the back of their minds.

I'm not asking why laws are in place. I understand that laws are in place to keep people from doing something that is "wrong"
my question here is: what makes those things wrong?

[Spirited Away]

You mean, to say we're here to debate why larceny, arson, kidnapping, and murder... etc. are wrong?

[Mulder]

^we're here to debate why we think those things are wrong.

and it really comes down to popular opinion. It primitive cultures, the leader, or chief, etc., decides the way of the tribe/group. Where those leaders got the ideas.... I don't know.

yay for nonreligious topics!

[bat19]

Okay, I'd like to first point out that I'm coming down from a pretty good high so if I sound strange in any way, thats why.
The concept of right and wrong dates back to the most primitive humans, the greatest misdeeds being 1. Murder, 2. Rape, 3. Theft. The original sins. Don't go by the bible, this is the real truth. All decisions we've made, be it moral decisions or otherwise have to do with time. You might think that sounds crazy, but it all comes from time. Human intelligence comes from the discovery of time. The most primitive people looked at the sky and discovered that the moon waxes and wanes in cycles, that the sun comes up in a pattern, that certain mysteries of the cosmos revolve around some astrological pattern that they realized could be used in measurements. Not only did this discovery lead to other human breakthroughs, like the wheel or fire, but also led to the beginning of philosophy, the questioning of why and how we are here on this earth. Our questioning of life led to the advancement of our intelligence which is why all the futuristic adolescents of today walk around with little communicators that contact people from the other side of the planet or media sticks that hold thousands of songs and movies that can be viewed or listened to at a whim. Im getting off my point(we are in the future in case everyone was wondering. If we were to go to the past Back to the Future style, we would be the ETs of the 70's and 80's. The 90's were crazy, woman had lion's mane hair and men wore baseball caps and played with yo-yo's for the first time since the ice-age. This was really the start of our de-volution, sided along rap music, give it 50 years and we'll be beatig eachother with clubs again), let me just say that the original thinkers used time as their judgement. What do our oldest records say they would do to the trespassers of conscience....They would banish them for a certain amount of "time." The original punishments came from time. They would either banish or kill you, which in effect ended your time. haha. Follow this path and you will see that it al makes sense. I didn't conduct any research previous to writing this, this is all original thought.

[elaboratedream]

^^ didn't really understand that... or at least how it related to the topic, but it was entertaining to read all the same....


but responding to my own topic.... my friends and I were talking about this yesterday when we were in a particularly philisophical mood, and we figured out what makes something wrong... haven't quite figured out what makes something right, but at least we answered half of it.

Okay, so it all starts with the concept of free will. As humans, we have the ability to make choices. These choices cannot be controlled directly by anyone else, they are completely our own. When someone does something that infringes on another's free will, that's wrong.

For example:
Murder is wrong. Someone chose to live, you killed them.
Rape is wrong. Someone chose not to have sex with you, but you did it anyway.
Theft is wrong. Someone chose to own the item, you took it away.
Drinking, smoking, shooting up heroin, w/e is not wrong. It's your choice, you're not affecting anyone else.
Having sex is not wrong in any context so long as both parties agree to it.
Inforcing laws against something that isn't wrong is wrong. Someone chose to do w/e and you didn't let them.

I could keep going, but I'm guessing you get the point.
Do you agree?

[ericbana]

img removed
- robbi

[Spirited Away]

Premises do not follow conclusions, or rather, I'm just not clear on these.

1) Someone wants to live and you kill them is wrong, therefore murder is wrong.

Let's say in a certaint society, there is a killer/murderer of countless children. This killer/murderer doesn't want to die, but when he is caught, he is sent to death row and is eletrocuted soon after. Is this society guilty of murdering the murderer?

2) Theft is wrong. Someone chose to own the item, you took it away

If I own a grenade and show it off to my neighbors, who gets fussy and calls the cops on me and take it away... did the cops steal from me? I chose to own it though...

3) Exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer. Your choice is affecting someone.

4) Inforcing laws against something that isn't wrong is wrong. Someone chose to do w/e and you didn't let them.

Then you're saying that foreclosure laws (though unfair at times), jaywalking laws, or laws against diving boards around pools with shallow waters are wrong?

That was sick. I will have a nightmare.

[jessicaalba]

[img removed
- robbi

[Mystic Eyes]

The perception and concept of right and wrong is the same as good and evil. Society has been teaching us, almost telling us if you like about what is deemed right and wrong when really it's nothing but a view point. Just because stealing is deemed wrong by society, does it really make it wrong universally? Off course not, because there's nothing in the laws of the universe or anything like that which states or indicates it to be wrong. It's just because we're taught thats its wrong so therefore we deem it wrong. It's all about nurture.

[elaboratedream]

Let's say in a certaint society, there is a killer/murderer of countless children. This killer/murderer doesn't want to die, but when he is caught, he is sent to death row and is eletrocuted soon after. Is this society guilty of murdering the murderer?

If the person did something that is wrong, they know the consequences. They are making a complex choice. It doesn't just stop with a choice to kill someone or not to kill someone. It continues to a choice to kill someone and then go to jail and possibly be killed for the crime. Thus, although they may change their mind on the decision, the decision has been made and the punishment is part of the choice.

If I own a grenade and show it off to my neighbors, who gets fussy and calls the cops on me and take it away... did the cops steal from me? I chose to own it though...

Yes, the cops stole it from you. Their actions were wrong, and should not be tolerated.

3) Exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer. Your choice is affecting someone.

No, it's not. The person made a choice to be around you. Unless of course you have them tied up and you're blowing smoke in their face (which would be wrong), its your own fault for chosing to be near them.

Then you're saying that foreclosure laws (though unfair at times), jaywalking laws, or laws against diving boards around pools with shallow waters are wrong?

For the most part, yes. I also think that anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, and drinking age laws are wrong.

That was sick. I will have a nightmare

What was sick?

[Simba]

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is determined by popular consensus.

For example, when focusing on the group of people known as the Ku Klux Klan, it's common knowledge that hating on Black people and burning crosses is "right," and becoming friends with a Black person is "wrong."

Though, of course, when you look at the United States as a whole, you get conflicting opinions on what's right and what's wrong.

I'm confident in saying that a majority of us could agree that murder, rape, theft are unacceptable. Because an overwhelming majority (in the U.S., not just here) agree that it is unwanted, and so there are restrictions on the three to prevent them from occurring.


You could say that laws are also a restriction on freedom. You could also say it's a matter of whether people are capable of handling such freedom as well.

[Spirited Away]

1. If the person did something that is wrong, they know the consequences. They are making a complex choice. It doesn't just stop with a choice to kill someone or not to kill someone. It continues to a choice to kill someone and then go to jail and possibly be killed for the crime. Thus, although they may change their mind on the decision, the decision has been made and the punishment is part of the choice.

2. Yes, the cops stole it from you. Their actions were wrong, and should not be tolerated.


3. No, it's not. The person made a choice to be around you. Unless of course you have them tied up and you're blowing smoke in their face (which would be wrong), its your own fault for chosing to be near them.

4. For the most part, yes. I also think that anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, and drinking age laws are wrong.

There was a very violent image before my post but a mod took it off.

1. I don't think I was clear so let me try again. The question I'm asking is from the perspective of the society. The society kills the murderer though he wants to live, according to your premises, however, doing so makes the society guilty of murder, which is a wrong. I am not talking about punishment for a complex choice and why it makes sense (or not), but simply how that punishment is now considered a murder based on your premises.

2. So now let's look at the bigger picture. I didn't tell you that I am a disturbed individual living in a family neighborhood near a school. Now then, if you are my neighbor, you wouldn't mind my grenade? It is not wrong to you that my possession is a threat to your neighbors, the kids, and yourself? Okay, if the answer is no and that is reality, then we would live in a dangerous world. More dangerous than it already is.

My free will to do what I want must stop where my will endangers the ability of others to exercise their free will. That's why there are laws.

3. Really. It's not? So you're saying that single mothers do not endanger their children if they smoke? Also, if I'm sitting in my favorite seat and you came along and sit next to me, proceed to smoke and blow cancer inducing smoke around me, who's free will is being threatened here? Yes, I could move, but so could you. We both refuse. What then? Who's free will is superior?

4. Why would you think foreclosure laws are wrong? Have you ever loan someone a huge amount of money and have them run away and you never see it again? Yes, it was your free will to loan them the cash, their free will to sign contracts saying that they will pay you back, their free will to run away. So what does that leaves you?

Again, here is a case of whose free will has precedent. This means we would be putting a lable on everyone, putting them into classes of importance. Why is your free will being abused and trampled on when the other get away with everything?

My free will to prostitute in your neighborhood, may not bother you, but your neighbors might try to hurt me, hunt me down for wooing their husbands and children. It's their free will to do so, but it's trampling on my free will. Who has precedence? Same with drugs.

Because I can't edit my posts on my lap top, here's a double post.

Laws [governments] are a necessary evil. This comes from Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Whether these laws seem wrong or right, we are subject to them, until we find ourselves oppressed by them and find enough anger/need for justice/need to "right" things and fight back.

Until then, I believe, the only way we know right from wrong is through experience.

[elaboratedream]

There was a very violent image before my post but a mod took it off.

1. I don't think I was clear so let me try again. The question I'm asking is from the perspective of the society. The society kills the murderer though he wants to live, according to your premises, however, doing so makes the society guilty of murder, which is a wrong. I am not talking about punishment for a complex choice and why it makes sense (or not), but simply how that punishment is now considered a murder based on your premises.

As I said, murder is wrong because the person you killed made the choice to live. However, as I also said, if that person killed someone, they were at the same time making a choice to die and can't take back that choice. Thus, no one is imposing on anyone else's free will by killing the murderer.

2. So now let's look at the bigger picture. I didn't tell you that I am a disturbed individual living in a family neighborhood near a school. Now then, if you are my neighbor, you wouldn't mind my grenade? It is not wrong to you that my possession is a threat to your neighbors, the kids, and yourself? Okay, if the answer is no and that is reality, then we would live in a dangerous world. More dangerous than it already is.

No, I wouldn't. It's your choice to have it. Simply having it doesnt mean anything. Even if you are a "disturbed individual". Being a "disturbed individual" doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to kill people w/ that grenade.

3. Really. It's not? So you're saying that single mothers do not endanger their children if they smoke? Also, if I'm sitting in my favorite seat and you came along and sit next to me, proceed to smoke and blow cancer inducing smoke around me, who's free will is being threatened here? Yes, I could move, but so could you. We both refuse. What then? Who's free will is superior?

In the case of the mother, it's not a problem if she smokes. However, if the child cannot remove itself from the situation and avoid inhaling the smoke, then she is doing something wrong by smoking while she's near the child. But in the second example, it's not wrong. You have a choice. You can sit there and risk inhaling a little bit of second hand smoke (which really isn't that harmful unless you're exposed to it A LOT of it so quit being a pussy about it) or you can move.

4. Why would you think foreclosure laws are wrong? Have you ever loan someone a huge amount of money and have them run away and you never see it again? Yes, it was your free will to loan them the cash, their free will to sign contracts saying that they will pay you back, their free will to run away. So what does that leaves you?

I apologize for that one, I had written out why I didn't think foreclosure laws were wrong, but the post got messed up and I had to rewrite it all and forgot that part.
Foreclosure laws aren't wrong because the person made a choice not to pay, and in so doing, they also made a choice to lose the property.

My free will to prostitute in your neighborhood, may not bother you, but your neighbors might try to hurt me, hunt me down for wooing their husbands and children. It's their free will to do so, but it's trampling on my free will. Who has precedence? Same with drugs.

In the case of the prostitute, the neighbors are in the wrong. You weren't affecting anyone directly by being a prostitute. the men might have been in the wrong, and the neighbors were definately wrong. By hurting the prostitute (who did nothing wrong by charging money for sex seeing as his/her client was willing to pay.) the neighbors were in the wrong.

And how do drugs affect anyone else's free will???

Laws [governments] are a necessary evil. This comes from Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Whether these laws seem wrong or right, we are subject to them, until we find ourselves oppressed by them and find enough anger/need for justice/need to "right" things and fight back.

I didn't say all laws are wrong. I was saying that laws against things that aren't wrong are wrong themselves.

[Spirited Away]

1. You're saying that if I kill someone, I forfeit the right to live? How so? Wouldn't the society forfeit the right to live when it executes the murderer then?

2. Right, you can't find someone guilty of stealing when he's only thought about doing it. However, how would you know what my intentions are with the grenade? It's like people growing weed in their basements and police raids the house and arrest the owners. The police would be in the wrong again? Or if I am arrested for taking nude pictures of children in sexual acts and selling them. It's my choice, right? How about DUIs? It's my choice to drink and drive, why should I be arrested?

Once again, the case of whose free will has precedence.

3. About second hand smoke... If I was a pussy for sitting there first and complaining, you'd be a butthole for coming later and blowing smoke in my face. So again, whose free will has precedence. I want to sit there, but you want to blow smoke in my face.

This is a problem. You are trampling on my right as someone with the same free will as you to sit in my favorite spot. By your standard, you can go up to anyone on the street and blow smoke "O's" on their faces and get away with it.

4. You said, and I quote "inforcing laws against something that isn't wrong is wrong. Someone chose to do w/e and you didn't let them". The first bit, is passably acceptible, the second part is problematic; the example/premise doesn't support the conclusion. If someone choose to do wrong (the "w/e" that you mentioned), and I didn't let them, I would still be in the wrong?

I apologize for that one, I had written out why I didn't think foreclosure laws were wrong, but the post got messed up and I had to rewrite it all and forgot that part.
Foreclosure laws aren't wrong because the person made a choice not to pay, and in so doing, they also made a choice to lose the property.

Well now, this is confusing. You said if I didn't let them do whatever they want, I would be the one committing a wrong act. So why would foreclosure laws not be wrong here?

In the case of the prostitute, the neighbors are in the wrong. You weren't affecting anyone directly by being a prostitute. the men might have been in the wrong, and the neighbors were definately wrong. By hurting the prostitute (who did nothing wrong by charging money for sex seeing as his/her client was willing to pay.) the neighbors were in the wrong.

This is interesting. You seem to think that free will belongs to only certain individuals. Here, you seem to think that I can whore around all I want because I have the free will to do so, but you don't think that the neighbors can exercise their free will to remove the prostitute. One way free will?

And how do drugs affect anyone else's free will???

How about the free will of those who want to live in a world free of drugs? Whose free will is more important?

I didn't say all laws are wrong. I was saying that laws against things that aren't wrong are wrong themselves.

I didn't say that you said all laws are wrong =). I quoted Thomas Paine to make my point about experience being the guide to right and wrong.

How do you feel about laws that protect people from themselves? Let's say laws that incarcerate the mentally ill?

[elaboratedream]

1. You're saying that if I kill someone, I forfeit the right to live? How so? Wouldn't the society forfeit the right to live when it executes the murderer then?

by making the choice to kill someone, and knowing that the consequence for murder is death, you are in fact making the choice to die.
The society is not in the wrong because the person chose to die, thus you're not doing anything wrong. It's only wrong when the person chooses to live, and although the murderer, now that the time has come for his/her execution, may choose to live, he/she has already made the choice to die and can't take it back.

I'm not going to explain that one again, I think I've made my point very clear and its no use trying to explain it again when you obviously are too stupid to understand it.

2. Right, you can't find someone guilty of stealing when he's only thought about doing it. However, how would you know what my intentions are with the grenade? It's like people growing weed in their basements and police raids the house and arrest the owners. The police would be in the wrong again? Or if I am arrested for taking nude pictures of children in sexual acts and selling them. It's my choice, right? How about DUIs? It's my choice to drink and drive, why should I be arrested?

It doesn't matter what you intend to do. It matters what you DO.
Yes, the police would be in the wrong. The person growing the weed isn't doing anything wrong. How is growing weed affecting anyone else's choice?
If the children are well informed and choose to allow someone to take nude pictures of them, then nothing is wrong with that. A little disturbing that someone would want to see it in my opinion, but not wrong.
The person driving drunk isn't doing anything wrong until they hurt someone else.

3. About second hand smoke... If I was a pussy for sitting there first and complaining, you'd be a butthole for coming later and blowing smoke in my face. So again, whose free will has precedence. I want to sit there, but you want to blow smoke in my face.

This is a problem. You are trampling on my right as someone with the same free will as you to sit in my favorite spot. By your standard, you can go up to anyone on the street and blow smoke "O's" on their faces and get away with it.

Okay, if the person is blowing it directly in your face, that's wron, but if they're just smoking near you, it's not a problem.

4. You said, and I quote "inforcing laws against something that isn't wrong is wrong. Someone chose to do w/e and you didn't let them". The first bit, is passably acceptible, the second part is problematic; the example/premise doesn't support the conclusion. If someone choose to do wrong (the "w/e" that you mentioned), and I didn't let them, I would still be in the wrong?

If they're doing something WRONG, it's not a problem if they are punished for it. If they're doing something that ISNT WRONG, then it is WRONG to punish them for it.

Well now, this is confusing. You said if I didn't let them do whatever they want, I would be the one committing a wrong act. So why would foreclosure laws not be wrong here?
This is interesting. You seem to think that free will belongs to only certain individuals. Here, you seem to think that I can whore around all I want because I have the free will to do so, but you don't think that the neighbors can exercise their free will to remove the prostitute. One way free will?

I explained why foreclosure laws aren't wrong. By choosing not to pay, you're choosing to have your property taken away.

How was the prostitute doing anything wrong? Is anyone else's free will affected?
The neighbors were doing something wrong by hurting/removing the prostitute. He/she chose to be there, he/she chose not to be hurt, and the neighbors ignored that and hurt/removed him/her anyways.
When you use your free will in a way that infringes on someone else's, then you're doing something wrong.
When you use your free will in a way that doesn't affect anyone but yourself, you're not doing anything wrong.

How about the free will of those who want to live in a world free of drugs? Whose free will is more important?

Hitler wanted to live in a world free of Jews. Was that right?
No. In order for that to be realized, you'd be affecting the free will of others.
People choose to use drugs, and they don't affect anyone else by doing that.
Jews choose to live, and don't affect anyone else by doing that.
By saying you want to live in a world free of either of those, you're affecting someone else's free will.

How do you feel about laws that protect people from themselves? Let's say laws that incarcerate the mentally ill?

I don't think it's right to incarcerate the mentally ill. In fact, I am very strongly against it.
Unless they did something wrong, they shouldn't be locked up.
I'd rant about that topic, but that's not what this thread is about.
But to put it simply, I hope everyone who tries to lock someone else up against their will for being "mentally ill" gets hit by a bus and survives that (although completely paralyzed) only to get some horrible disease that kills them very slowly and very painfully.

[Spirited Away]

trying to explain it again when you obviously are too stupid to understand it.

I just have this to say for now because I have a date with the stack of DVDs my friend lend me... the rest shall be taken care of at a later time.

I am as stupid as the material that I have read. If you convey an unclear, irrational message, then it will come off just so to any reader. I may be stubborn--I have been called that, but hardly stupid just because I have my own opinions.

You're saying that if I kill you, I have a death wish, which doesn't make a lick of sense when I don't want to die. Many killers kill for the fun, the thrill of it, not wanting to die themselves. How did you come to the conclusion that a murderer chooses to die when he kills? I assure you, just because a killer murders someone doesn't mean that he wants to be caught and wants to get executed.

Please, less degradation and more rational explanations for the questions asked.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

The perception and concept of right and wrong is the same as good and evil. Society has been teaching us, almost telling us if you like about what is deemed right and wrong when really it's nothing but a view point. Just because stealing is deemed wrong by society, does it really make it wrong universally? Off course not, because there's nothing in the laws of the universe or anything like that which states or indicates it to be wrong. It's just because we're taught thats its wrong so therefore we deem it wrong. It's all about nurture.

I agree with what you said, although right and wrong aren't exactly the same as good and evil.

Ethics aren't the same as morals after all. They belong to complete different levels of human social evolution, and while there's reciprocal action between them the borders separating both fields do exist.

[elaboratedream]

You're saying that if I kill you, I have a death wish, which doesn't make a lick of sense when I don't want to die. Many killers kill for the fun, the thrill of it, not wanting to die themselves. How did you come to the conclusion that a murderer chooses to die when he kills? I assure you, just because a killer murders someone doesn't mean that he wants to be caught and wants to get executed.

I'm saying that when anyone does something as extreme as killing someone, they know the consequences. Now, if you know the consequences and do it anyways, you're accepting those consequences.
When someone makes the choice to murder someone, they are at the same time making a choice to accept whatever consequence that includes.
Since in this particular case, the consequence is death, they chose to die.

[Spirited Away]

I'm saying that when anyone does something as extreme as killing someone, they know the consequences. Now, if you know the consequences and do it anyways, you're accepting those consequences.
When someone makes the choice to murder someone, they are at the same time making a choice to accept whatever consequence that includes.
Since in this particular case, the consequence is death, they chose to die.

So according to you, knowing the consequences of killing someone is the same is forfeiting my rights to live after the killing?

Sorry I'm short on time, but it's a yes or no question.

[Simba]

Some people will try not to burn themselves when touching a fire.

Well, first of all, not everyone knows that touching a fire could burn their finger.

[shortnsweet88]

Well, first off there is nothing I hate more then a person stating an opinion in the form of a statement...so be careful how you word things and second of all..

like it or not...

this country was built on christian morals. No joke, the first settlers were some form of christians...or whatever...and the morals come from their beliefs...which got turned into laws...in which case we keep most of them today.

[elaboratedream]

So according to you, knowing the consequences of killing someone is the same is forfeiting my rights to live after the killing?

Sorry I'm short on time, but it's a yes or no question.

Yes.
In the same way that by slitting someone's throat, knowing that it will most likely kill them, you are choosing to kill them, by killing someone, knowing that if you do kill them you will most likely get caught and go to jail/be given the death penalty, you are choosing those consequences.

like it or not...

this country was built on christian morals. No joke, the first settlers were some form of christians...or whatever...and the morals come from their beliefs...which got turned into laws...in which case we keep most of them today.

I wasn't asking where laws came from or what morals this country was built on. I was asking where the idea of right and wrong comes from

[Spirited Away]

Again, short on time.

And in the case of killing self-defense?

[MrStrife]

Anything that causes others pain and suffering is considered wrong?

[Ington]

Wrong is the choice that harms the most - does the most amount of damage.
Right is the choice that harms the least - does the least amount of damage.

Wrong is not just something that causes suffering. If someone is planning to kill 100 people and you make that person suffer by catching them and sending them to jail, its the right thing to do, because it will have the least amount of cumulative damage. You have to gage it from all the people affected, its not direct at all.

[MrStrife]

Right choices. Wrong choices. I think that's all there is to it now. Choices. We all were kids and didn't know any better so we did whatever the heck we wanted to and got into loads and loads of trouble. Until we got disciplined of course. Then later we learned that our actions had consequences and that they affect other people. We've been dealing with it ever since and keep learning from it. Either we're right or we're wrong? No, not that simple. Because in this cold world, there is no black and white. Only shades of gray. What is right to one man is wrong to another. So who's really the judge of that?

I think the biggest example of what is wrong are the 7 deadly sins: Lust, Envy, Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Anger, Greed.

Sorry to use a religious reference in this thread, trust me I'm atheist. But I do know my shit.

[Simba]

Sorry to use a religious reference in this thread, trust me I'm atheist. But I do know my shit.

It's ok. Many other people's morals have their roots in religion (the morals).