this is something i've been thinking about, and i don't know what is right or wrong for that matter. hearing all different people say different things all the time drives me crazy. how am i or is anyone else to know who's right or wrong? who is good or bad?

Quote from: FullMoon19 on March 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
this is something i've been thinking about, and i don't know what is right or wrong for that matter. hearing all different people say different things all the time drives me crazy. how am i or is anyone else to know who's right or wrong? who is good or bad?

If its me i am always right so that solves that.  Oh and i am very very good except when i am bad.  Then again i can be wrong if i want too 

Right, wrong, good, bad are subjective to just about everyone.  What one person thinks is right might be wrong to another person, same with good and bad.  Some behaviors (stealing, murder, etc.) seem to be almost universally seen as bad, though it depends on the circumstances (sacrifice, stealing for food, etc.)

Unfortunately, anybody who has the authority to speak by virtue of a degree (MD or PhD) do not do because legal liability, and equally important, because most people want to believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

So, like many other people here and elsewhere you have to educate yourself if you want to get closer to the truth.

I assume you mean morally rather than just what is lawful or unlawful?   
That is probably best judged against your own religious or philosophical beliefs and is totally subjective.  If you are comfortable with a decision,  it doesn't cause you to feel guilty , so it is right I'd say.  The reverse will apply if it is morally wrong.

I'd suggest reading Jean Paul Satre's thoughts, that should keep you from asking any questions for a fair while!

Karen.

A fun question!
I would agree with Karen.
If you are religious, then your sense of ethics and morality would be determined by your religion - whether it be monotheistic (Jewish, Islam or Christian) or polytheistic.  This would arise from submission to a power you believe to be greater than mankind, with that power having the right to determine what is right and wrong.

If you are atheist then it would boil down to personal philosophy, and whether you agree to the norms of your society - if you subscribe to the idea that all are equal, then no one person should be able to dictate to another what is right or wrong.

Quote from: peky on March 27, 2012, 08:40:52 PM
Unfortunately, anybody who has the authority to speak by virtue of a degree (MD or PhD) do not do because legal liability, and equally important, because most people want to believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

So, like many other people here and elsewhere you have to educate yourself if you want to get closer to the truth.

I was speking for science and technology part of it all.

Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have! But they have one thing you haven't got - a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th. D...that's Doctor of Thinkology


The Scarecrow demonstrates his brain power by placing his finger to his head and incorrectly reciting a mathematical formula - the Pythagorean Theorem: "The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isoceles (actually a right triangle)  triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. (He is overjoyed.) Oh joy, rapture, I've got a brain. How can I ever thank you enough?"

Quote from: FullMoon19 on March 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
this is something i've been thinking about, and i don't know what is right or wrong for that matter. hearing all different people say different things all the time drives me crazy. how am i or is anyone else to know who's right or wrong? who is good or bad?

When I'm good, I'm very, very good.  But when I'm bad, I'm better.

Quote from: justmeinoz on March 28, 2012, 02:07:39 AM
I assume you mean morally rather than just what is lawful or unlawful?   
That is probably best judged against your own religious or philosophical beliefs and is totally subjective.  If you are comfortable with a decision,  it doesn't cause you to feel guilty , so it is right I'd say.  The reverse will apply if it is morally wrong.

I'd suggest reading Jean Paul Satre's thoughts, that should keep you from asking any questions for a fair while!

Karen.

That reminds me of a quote:

"Fear is the mother of morality." ~Friedrich Nietzsche

How much of an act which someone percieves as wrong is based on the fear of the consequences of undertaking it, rather than viewing such an act as reprehensible in and of itself? Fear of getting caught, fear of going to Hell, fear of having to answer for what you've done et cetera.

Interesting to ponder.

You could ask, who has chocolate?

The only truth is scientific truth based on continually asking rigorous questions. Which of course means there is no truth, there is just an infinite search for it. Even now we question well developed scientific beliefs as we gain more knowledge.  The 'ultimate' smallest particle the Bason (?) is know under question and to look at them you need billion dollar cyclotrons and more than a basic grasp of math and then your competitors immediately try to prove you wrong. by refining the experiment.

I like dark chocolate

Quote from: luna nyan on March 28, 2012, 05:01:49 AM
...If you are religious, then your sense of ethics and morality would be determined by your religion - whether it be monotheistic (Jewish, Islam or Christian) or polytheistic.  This would arise from submission to a power you believe to be greater than mankind, with that power having the right to determine what is right and wrong.

If you are atheist then it would boil down to personal philosophy, and whether you agree to the norms of your society - if you subscribe to the idea that all are equal, then no one person should be able to dictate to another what is right or wrong.

Then again, some religions are non-theistic, but are still more than "personal philosophies" . And are often very at odds with the norms of society, which can be pretty immoral (in that said norms are often shored up by greed and hatred).

I had a teacher who used to like saying "Everyone has their own truth", to which I always replied "Yeah... but that's just *your* truth... mine is that some things are inherently more true than others. Now what?"

Non-Aristotlean  (Null-A) logic operates on the basis that there are not just two possible answers to a question, but a range of answers in between.  Similar to the idea of the Gender Binary versus a range of Genders between a theoretical pure Male and a Pure Female.

To put it another way, it is possible to be partly right and partly wrong.  In fact that is almost always the situation, as there is almost always more evidence to be considered in any question.

Karen.

But isn't that the scientific method. To keep approaching the question with more questions and more evidence. The evidence is cumulative and capable or reinterpretation. Truth isn't what you look for; it is what you can prove. Truth cannot be an opinion , that is why emotion cannot be part of truth. Because emotion will always say 'In my opinion you are wrong' which may be a very mild way that a discussion of who does the housework may be presented, and of course will not be accepted by either party. 'You are a lazy Bastd who comes home opens a beer and leaves me to do the cooking and cleaning' May appear truthful for one person. 'I've worked like hell for months to cut some greats deals, increased my payscale and scored a holiday for the two of us, and I feel totally exhausted and who gives s**t if the towels haven't been folded, and I was going to suggest dinner out, but you have screwed that up' ; may be another truth.

Both may be right, both may be wrong.

Which is why many couples want to put their partner into a cyclotron and see how many atoms they contain.

Takes the emotion out of the argument

Sorry

Cindy

To "see both sides" of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.
- Idries Shah

Quote from: Padma on April 02, 2012, 04:59:12 AM
Then again, some religions are non-theistic, but are still more than "personal philosophies" . And are often very at odds with the norms of society, which can be pretty immoral (in that said norms are often shored up by greed and hatred).

I had a teacher who used to like saying "Everyone has their own truth", to which I always replied "Yeah... but that's just *your* truth... mine is that some things are inherently more true than others. Now what?"

I was generalising about religions, but yeah, I'd agree with you saying that some are non-theistic.  For example, I've always had a bit of difficulty classifying buddhism due to it's non-theistic nature - it's very much philosophical, but at the same time there are mystic aspects to it.  I guess it boils down to what you personally want to define as a religion vs a philosophy.

Now re: truth.
"There is no absolute truth" - discuss

Quote from: luna nyan on April 02, 2012, 06:32:31 AM
I was generalising about religions, but yeah, I'd agree with you saying that some are non-theistic.  For example, I've always had a bit of difficulty classifying Buddhism due to it's non-theistic nature - it's very much philosophical, but at the same time there are mystic aspects to it.  I guess it boils down to what you personally want to define as a religion vs a philosophy.

Now re: truth.
"There is no absolute truth" - discuss

Is not the supreme goal of Buddhism to become so enlightened that you achieve ones with the creator? Seem to me they do believe in God (creator)

Is not the supreme goal of Buddhism to become so enlightened that you achieve ones with the creator? Seem to me they do believe in God (creator)

It's far more like becoming one with the creation, rather than the creator.  It's about being in the exact right space in the universe and having that frequency resound in you, more than it's about the worship of some entity.  Buddha is a centerpiece, a focal point, but the larger point is that we can all become as Buddha ourselves, that we all have a Buddha nature that only we can fulfill.

"There is no absolute truth" - discuss
There are lots of absolute truths.  Depends on the question which ones are valid.  I know people in here (and elsewhere too) get real hung up on the binary, but just because thing A is 'good' does not make all that is not 'A' bad.  One truth does not render all else false.

For example, I've always had a bit of difficulty classifying Buddhism due to it's non-theistic nature - it's very much philosophical, but at the same time there are mystic aspects to it.  I guess it boils down to what you personally want to define as a religion vs a philosophy.
Well there are some pretty ironclad differences between what is a 'religion' and what constitutes a 'philosophy'.  And in any of them, all of them in fact, Buddhism would be considered a religion, not just a philosophy.   It has ritual, and a definite separation between the sacred and the profane - both very religious deals.  But religion is not required to have a supernatural god, not at all.  In fact pretty much only the newer Western ones have that omnipresent god thing as a constant and unending focal point.  Confucianism doesn't have a one and was for a long time the most practiced religion in the world.  That Confucianism was totally humanistic, totally lacking any supernatural divinity does not make it any less religious.^*  Simply put "having a god" is not a requirement for a religion.  Look at Nazi Germany. 

* - They are similar in most ways however, Confucianism is preaching: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" centuries before Jesus was strolling about the Holy Land saying the same thing.

There's no creator in Buddhism, because nothing is created. There's no becoming one with anything (that sounds more like Hinduism). There's just going beyond the self - over and over and over!