Right or Wrong?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by TommyCrossbones, Feb 22, 2009.

  1. So this is a concept that just sort of floats around in my brain, and I end up thinking about it a lot while I'm stoned. So I thought I'd drop it here and hopefully some of you are much smarter than me and can either tear it apart or back it up. Either way I thought it'd be interesting. Here goes:

    The ideas of right and wrong are based on a personal ethos developed by our experiences. What is right and wrong to you might not be right or wrong to me.


    If no true universally accepted parameters can be set on right and wrong can they truly exist? What measure do we use to quantify it?


    There is no right or wrong, merely consequences to our actions.
  2. Simply because we can "isolate" consequences does not mean our actions are truly isolated.

    You have correlation here...
  3. I think I agree with you if I fully understood what you said.

    IMO right and wrong are purely speculative. Most of what we believe to be right and wrong are from rules we have been forced to internalize. Morality is both a luxury and a crutch, but very few people actually form their own morals.
  4. Nah, they just discover them by transgressing their hearts.
  5. Nagasaki Bombing, 1945- Right Or Wrong?

    The war was over with the bombing of Hiroshima, the second atomic bomb was unnecessary and directed at a non-military target. Even military experts agree, this was not anything more than flexing a new muscle, and punishment for Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese did as little damage to non-military targets as possible.

    Is punitive blanket assassination ever the right thing to do?

    A case to ponder.

  6. There is no right or wrong, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened, that is all. The consequences on a Micro level were atrocious, and inhumane to put it lightly. An estimated conservative death toll I once saw placed the dead from those two bombings at 225,000, it was civilized barbacy. But on a Macro level it was directly responsible for Japan ceding out of the war and hastening it's conclusion, saving countless other lives.

    If the war had gone the other way and the axis powers had won the consequences would have been very different. Japan would have been to America what the Jews were to the Germans and a whole different set of people would have been tried for war crimes.

    So I say again, there is no right or wrong, merely consequences to our actions.
  7. Right and wrong are just labels.

    Instinctively, we determine right from wrong by the "vibes" we perceive.

    Really, what right and wrong is, is love and fear. Love and fear are the two basic emotions that stems into every emotion we feel. Right is love, fear is wrong.

  8. I would disagree about morality being a "luxury and a crutch". But that alot of moral codes are put in place not because we actually think of an action as right or wrong but instead because of the direct and indirect consequences that result from that action. Often those consequences are culturally based, an action that is celebrated in one nation maybe frowned upon or even prosecuted in another.
  9. #9 TommyCrossbones, Feb 23, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2009

    Right and wrong are just labels.
    Yes totally!

    Instinctively, we determine right and wrong by the "vibes" we percieve.
    I agree, but I think that consciously or not (likely not in alot of cases) part of the vibe is the self considering all the consequences.

    Really, what right and wrong is, is love and fear. Love and fear are the two basic emotions that stems into every emotion we feel. Right is love, fear is wrong.
    I can't entirely agree with this but I haven't a complete argument against it yet. I would say that fear also stems from consequences, in a consequence free world there is no fear.
  10. I think we are on the same page here. I think that right and wrong are pragmatic labels.
    For example most animals dont go around just killing everything they can, it isnt pragmatic, it doesnt allow for the most successful ecosystem/community/ or self. Likewise animals have roles in their groups that govern their behavior to allow for the best survival
    I think our human ideals stem from these basic biological drives (preserving the species) but we are taught them thru socialization.
    Thus theres no doubt that if i raise a baby and teach it that everything "good" is "bad" and everything we consider "right" is "wrong' that kid would probably embrace those counter ideals.
  11. I would argue that there is a quantifiable way to define wrong. It's based on intent and harm. If your actions and choices purposefully harm another person or their property then your action was wrong. If your action didn't harm anyone then you are not wrong. You could make a choice that indirectly harmed someone and in hindsight you might not want to do it again, you still have to pay the penalty for your action, but the action wasn't "wrong".

  12. Closer to the truth, yes.
  13. Once again, you are failing to draw the distinction based on some rumor fed to you, which is false.

    The bombing of Nagasaki, is not what turned the war, in fact it was pretty much done AFTER the fighting had ceased, with the bombing of Hiroshima.

    Nuking a city for no reason, is only OK with two sets of people that I know, the military, and sociopaths.

    The consequences of this action are still felt in the world today, the American guilt complex, has been turned into a National Paranoia complex, that has allowed the very right wing elements that are so much more like our old adversaries, the Axis, in their thinking and actions, than what the traditional American lifestyle and values we'd had, which preceeded the conflict, would allow us ever to become, to dominate the agenda, and keep the world at war.

    In short we have become a Nation that acts just like the Nazis and Fascists that we used to loathe.

    A National guilt complex, can become a Military Industrial Complex, in a hurry, if left unchecked. And that could cause some very wrong consequences, like bankrupting your own people, selling out your dreams to fears, and basically exposing every weakness you have, to any enemy who wishes to prey upon you.

    Like the United States does, with every passing year, and has by calling it patriotism, ever since 1945.

    I think it was wrong, and I would hate to see this act repeated again, against anyone, anywhere. And I think you are only looking for an excuse to deny plausibility and responsibility, which is also wrong, and a huge cause of America's problems at this moment.

    But then you say you are Canadian, so your conscience is clean, right?
  14. but for this to be true you imply that the intent to harm is in fact wrong... what if i say it isnt?

  15. Then you hold a different current perspective, and he still holds his.
  16. #16 TommyCrossbones, Feb 23, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2009
    I'm not saying your incorrect, by consider why is it you think it's "wrong" to cause harm?
  17. #17 TommyCrossbones, Feb 23, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2009
    The easiest thing to address is your last statement. Yes I am canadian but my conscience is far from clear my friend (that's my business though).

    Secondly 6 days after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan officially surrendered and ceased hostilities. THIS IS A HISTORICAL FACT NOT A RUMOR. It is very difficult to argue that the bombs did not factor heavily into their decision. There were more Japanese detonations planned that were cancelled after their surrender. The bombs were let off with a legitimate military objective in mind and once the objective had been completed no further action was necessary. Do I think the loss of life involved was tragic and even as I said earlier barbarous? yes. Do I condone the action that was taken? Can't say yea or nay on the matter, I can say that I don't as a rule condone military action and think that it is a crutch that is fallen upon to easily. But I acknowledge the impact to the world, both positive and negative, that those actions had.

    As for the American guilt complex and where it is/isn't/may lead? Who am I to say? I am not qualified to speak on the matter really.

    Finally I am not trying to deny responsibility. In fact I would petition MORE responsibility. It is the truly responsible man who considers ALL of the consequences of an action. I think people don't consider all the consequences and instead just act blindly based on ideals that they don't fully understand themselves (I.E. patriotism). And I don't think I've denied the plausibility of anything other than the concepts of right and wrong, might reconsider using that word.
  18. I am fairly certain the United States only had two working nuclear bombs in 1945. Also, as a fun fact, a good chunk of the people on the enolagay (plane that dropped first bomb) either killed themselves or went bat-shit crazy.

  19. "Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

    The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[57] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[57] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[57]"

    Not that I usually trust everything I read on Wiki (they really aren't 100% academically sound) but you can look it into it.

Share This Page