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]

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.