What's right vs. Majority consensus

[Tassado]

As the title suggests I want to talk about the difference between what's right and what society finds as politically correct at the time or just what everyone thinks.
First off, I've had to read about naturalists and other free thinkers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century at school lately. They talk about democracy as a kind of conduit for all people to express their thoughts and also mainitain individual importance. I'm not really an expert on this though. So, their thoughts are that you should have your own voice, and rise above the crowd. Henry David Thoreau a naturalist (jailed for not paying taxes)also emphasizes that it's also important to rebel against conventional government and that is part of democracy. They stress that it's good to have all people give in a say and not conform to societies norms. That's not necassarily saying that they'll do the right thing all the time. It just states that they'll all give in their ideas, which is chaotic. What's right is also open to interpretation, but let's just say it's a goal.
Majority consensus, can be warped until they are the opposite of what we think is right nowadays. It can happen that fast too. What I'm saying is, what matters more? Is culture all that matters? Should we follow society and do the right thing according to the majority? Or is it a more significant issue of doing what's right, say obeying the basic moral laws and never committing mores(murder, theft, rape).

(probably brought before right? probably the same as talking about god in a million threads)

[Yoda]

Well you should always do what is right even if society says that it is wrong. If I was living in Nazi Germany, therefore I shouldn't say "Heil Hitler!!" or "Death to all Jews and Communists" even though not doing this would cause a short drop and a sudden stop.

The problem with this is that people all have a different idea on what is right. The society will always think that it is right. Hitler thought that he was right, the current President of America probably thinks that he is right. As much as I think that "what is right" comes from God, for many people it comes from their own experience. Thats why there are laws...

So yeah, I would always do what I thought was right, even if society said it was wrong. But then, am I the right one or is society the right one? I hope I don't seem selfrighteous, because I certainly am not, but I don't like the moral values that this society encourages.

[singo]

Hmm, "It's important to rebel agains conventional government"

That seems to suggest that people do it for the hell of it, rather than for any of the (undoubtadly numerous) good reasons to rebel against the Government,

I would like to do what I consider right at all times, simply because "Majority Consensus" is a polite term for "Mob Rule" Unfortunately everyone has subtly differing views of what is right.

And wider views on what constitutes acceptable punishment for wrongdoing. So it gets a bit messy.

[GenocideAlive]

So yeah, I would always do what I thought was right, even if society said it was wrong. But then, am I the right one or is society the right one? I hope I don't seem selfrighteous, because I certainl am not, but I don't like the moral values that this society encourages.
This is hilarious. You are aware that you're a product of your environment, right? Most of "this society" encourages people to speak out and do whatever they think is right no matter what the majority thinks. So you're generally conforming, if you can wrap your brain around that. And it's pretty much impossible to say at any juncture what is "right", because the entire concept has its base in the caveat "to the best of my knowledge".

[Neo]

I think something could be argued that if its wrong to murder someone in one part of the world, its wrong anywhere in the world...

I mean, there are just certain thigns that are just wrong, regardless of the enviroment you live in (i mean, unless you grew up in some wacked out area), such as canabilism, rape, murder, incest... I dont know.

It could be argued that others things considered wrong by some societies may not be really wrong... just taboo for that cultue... I don't know...

Guess I am just saying that there are some things that are just wrong no matter what // or how you spin it, but other things might be wrong by that society's views... Like polygamy, or polytheism, or adultery, or I dont know.

I think nothing can be inherently wrong as long as it doesnt cause harm to another living being.

-Neo

[UnHoly-Assassin]

If you're representing the world from a high political position, then you have to go with the majority even if it may be the worst thing you can do. The most you can do is inform them of what they're asking for. However, as a human being, you have power over your own decisions therefore you do not need the majority of the people to decide your actions for you. Of course, rape and murder cannot be the right thing unless you're talking about murder in self defense.

[Yoda]

This is hilarious. You are aware that you're a product of your environment, right? Most of "this society" encourages people to speak out and do whatever they think is right no matter what the majority thinks. So you're generally conforming, if you can wrap your brain around that. And it's pretty much impossible to say at any juncture what is "right", because the entire concept has its base in the caveat "to the best of my knowledge".

Well yes, but not completely. People are not always a product of their environment.

[GenocideAlive]

I think something could be argued that if its wrong to murder someone in one part of the world, its wrong anywhere in the world...
I don't think it could. Argue it, please.
I mean, there are just certain thigns that are just wrong, regardless of the enviroment you live in (i mean, unless you grew up in some wacked out area), such as canabilism, rape, murder, incest... I dont know.
Wow. You picked some really bad examples.

Cannibalism was believed to be a religious ritual where you consume someone's soul by natives of small islands, and to those still untouched by civilization it's still sporadic.

Rape has been a facet of war for thousands upon thousands of years.

Mass murder is called war, and that's still pretty common.

Incest is actually encouraged in some environments, for various and sundry fucked up reasons.

The point being that your viewpoint on "right" is severely tainting your ability to argue unbiased on what is right or wrong.

[Tassado]

The problem with this is that people all have a different idea on what is right. The society will always think that it is right. Hitler thought that he was right, the current President of America probably thinks that he is right. As much as I think that "what is right" comes from God, for many people it comes from their own experience. Thats why there are laws...

The point being that your viewpoint on "right" is severely tainting your ability to argue unbiased on what is right or wrong.

Yes, you can pretty much rationalize anything if it's part of the culture, but then there are the modern standards aren't there? Right now everyone knows the rules. I think almost all countries in the world now has basic law, like no killing, raping, or thieving.

Also, in the days of the Nazi's what do you think the soldiers were thinking while they were killing millions of jews? People always have a choice because they can think about what they're doing. Even soldiers question their orders at a certain point. "following orders" is just a shield to protect the lower ranks and blaming the high command for what the whole organization condoned.

Then again... I don't wanna confuse you guys or myself but...
If you think about it, no matter what people believe, there's a certain unity of it. A unified group can out do any scattered groups. They have purpose and they believe in it. Even cultlike groups are devoted so much they sacrifice whatever it takes.
So, would a country that follows a dictator who knows what he's doing be more efficient, or a democratic government that has conflicting views on how to get a certain thing done and also different beliefs on what's right. (but the dictatorship is usually flawed and maybe even too fanatical to the point of being destructive)

Whoa.. uh sorry for that jabber. I think I just let loose an idea fart.

[Neo]

I don't think it could. Argue it, please.

Wow. You picked some really bad examples.

Cannibalism was believed to be a religious ritual where you consume someone's soul by natives of small islands, and to those still untouched by civilization it's still sporadic.

Rape has been a facet of war for thousands upon thousands of years.

Mass murder is called war, and that's still pretty common.

Incest is actually encouraged in some environments, for various and sundry fucked up reasons.

The point being that your viewpoint on "right" is severely tainting your ability to argue unbiased on what is right or wrong.
So you would find no probelm with having sexual relations with your Mother? How about you father? What about eating them?

Yes for those to be practiced it has to be part of the culture first, which is why i mentioned that in most places those things were considered wrong.

You can't argue that its wrong to murder someone in america and canada, and then to argue that its ok somewhere in africa.

I guess this goes back to a persons morality. But I still say that anything that harms another living being is wrong regardless of your personal or cultural beliefs.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

So you would find no probelm with having sexual relations with your Mother? How about you father? What about eating them?
You can't argue that its wrong to murder someone in america and canada, and then to argue that its ok somewhere in africa.
I guess this goes back to a persons morality. But I still say that anything that harms another living being is wrong regardless of your personal or cultural beliefs.
-Neo
As I was trying to state before, what I believe and what others believe are two different things. I have my beliefs, but I don't think they're "right" any more than those others' beliefs.

See previous statement regarding your personal beliefs tainting your impartiality.

[Morkeliph]

I have to agree with GenocideAlive here. Our social environment is what teaches us what is right and what is wrong. When considering that right and wrong are not pure facts, but are socially engrained morals this should be easy to understand. For example, for some homosexuality is a definite "wrong" but for others it is acceptable. This is something that differs for different people because of their differing environments. The staunch traditional Christian believes it is wrong because he has been trained that way; the liberal finds it acceptable for the same reason. To suggest that there are certain things that are wrong no matter your environment isn't entirely true. There are somethings that most environments train as being wrong, however, and almost everywhere are agreed upon as socially unacceptable.I guess this goes back to a persons morality. But I still say that anything that harms another living being is wrong regardless of your personal or cultural beliefs.I would suggest that harming others isn't a necessarily universal wrong, but for you it is a wrong because it has been trained in you to view it as such. Consider those persons who we view as "mentally distrubed" that view nothing wrong, or even gain pleasure in harming others (sadists). Can we be sure that they know that what they are doing is wrong or might they actually believe it is acceptable? How is this the result of their environment (internal or external)? To say that murder is unacceptable both in the Americas and Africa is to say that regardless of where you go, murder is unacceptable to you. But to a person who has been trained that murder is acceptable, regardless of where he goes he will view it as such, unless he is subsequently trained otherwise.

There are somethings, however, that you can see a biological or evolutionary reason for being termed "universally wrong" (though these too are subject to environmental conditioning). Incest is a good example. Biologically, incest is not beneficial to the survival of a species because it limits genetic diversity. It is easy to see how over evolutionary time, a biological preference for those with dissimilar genetic information may have emerged.Well yes, but not completely. People are not always a product of their environment.I disagree. People are always a product of their environment. What else can they be a product of?

As to the topic of this thread, whether we should follow the majority or do what is "right" always: don't people generally do what they believe is "right?" I mean, how many people look at a situation, find something they find objectionable, and then do that? Even in conforming, most people conform because they think it is right to conform. When conforming becomes something totally objectionable, then they will only conform to a point. There is an interesting study done on this by Stanley Milgram, in the late 60's; I highly recommend reading it. I'm sure you'll find it on google. That should give something interesting to this discussion at least. Perhaps I will post a link to it later, but I need to run to calss right now.

[Neo]

Thats the thing though, no one can ever be impartial.

-Neo

[CagedNomad]

There is no objective right and wrong, its all subjective. In nature, good and evil dont exist, they are purely human concepts. Whether it be through society and culture, one's family, personal experience or evolved instincts all of one's views on good and evil/right and wrong are derived from these things.

[Edit]
In between my writing this post and posting it Morkeliph posted saying basically what I have described above, but after reading the end of his post about how one generally always does what they believe is right I am reminded of decision and choice theory. Is it possible to make a decision that one believes wholeheartedly is wrong? I would say not. Yes, one may make a choice that involves doing something they believe is morally wrong, but the fact that they have made such choice shows that there is some overriding facet of the decision that makes it right for them. What has happened is that they have at least momentarily placed the reason for their decision above the moral values that tell them that it is wrong. They have effectively reshuffled their own priorities.

For example: A man decides to rob a bank. He believes that stealing is wrong, and armed robbery even worse. Yet, his need or want for the money override this belief and sets itself above the moral standard that stealing is wrong. He -must- believe that his need/want for the money is greater than the morality of robbery being wrong. If he did not, he could not have made the decision to rob the bank.

[Nuts]

Murder is a universal wrong. Examples are all around us. The animal kingdom is full of non-intelligent species that cultivate life instead of destroying it. Call it instinct, call it habit, but life is most certainly a basic "good" or "right." Until we witness mass self-imposed genocide, I believe it is safe to say that life is "right." Society has taken this basic right to a higher level, but the basics remain the same. Even cultures that devalue life to extreme degrees will still preserve lives of those that are deemed important. This rationale, no matter how perverse, still supports the theory that life is a basic good.

[CagedNomad]

Murder is a universal wrong. Examples are all around us. The animal kingdom is full of non-intelligent species that cultivate life instead of destroying it. Call it instinct, call it habit, but life is most certainly a basic "good" or "right." Until we witness mass self-imposed genocide, I believe it is safe to say that life is "right." Society has taken this basic right to a higher level, but the basics remain the same. Even cultures that devalue life to extreme degrees will still preserve lives of those that are deemed important. This rationale, no matter how perverse, still supports the theory that life is a basic good.

Murder happens in the animal kingdom every minute of every day. That it is often (certainly not always) for food and sustenance makes it no less of a murder. If a cannibal killed a person in order to eat him, would it not still be murder? Nature indeed cultivates life, but it also ushers in death.

"Even cultures that devalue life to extreme degrees will still preserve lives of those that are deemed important. This rationale, no matter how perverse, still supports the theory that life is a basic good."

The preservation of those lives has nothing to do with the idea that life is a basic good, but rather that these important people are more valuable to them alive than dead, or that there is a perceived need to keep them alive over others.

Life is only "right" in the sence that it has withstood the forces that pressure it into nonexistence and has utilized those forces which harbor and nurture it, not "right" in a moral sence.

[GenocideAlive]

Murder is a universal wrong. Examples are all around us. The animal kingdom is full of non-intelligent species that cultivate life instead of destroying it. Call it instinct, call it habit, but life is most certainly a basic "good" or "right." Until we witness mass self-imposed genocide, I believe it is safe to say that life is "right." Society has taken this basic right to a higher level, but the basics remain the same. Even cultures that devalue life to extreme degrees will still preserve lives of those that are deemed important.
It's hard to claim that murder is endorsed as a universal wrong, when governments consent, endorse, and plot mass-murder. Not only that, but it's been going on for at least six thousand years if you believe the Bible, longer if you don't.

And when you've got people running around killing others and murdering haphazardly, what are our options as a society? Murder him or take away all of his freedoms and pay for his food and board. What are your options as a smaller society? Either maroon him (if possible, still arguably murder) or murder him. There's pretty much no way to enforce anti-murder ideals without murder or ridiculous expense to house, maintain, and control those that don't obey.
This rationale, no matter how perverse, still supports the theory that life is a basic good.
I don't really think you've either asserted or formed any solid basis for saying that "life is a basic good". I think you've formed a good basis for "certain lives are a basic good". In which case, I think the exception there undermines the entire idea.

[Nuts]

Murder happens in the animal kingdom every minute of every day. That it is often (certainly not always) for food and sustenance makes it no less of a murder. If a cannibal killed a person in order to eat him, would it not still be murder? Nature indeed cultivates life, but it also ushers in death.
Choose your arguments carefully and don't assume anything.

I never claimed that murder was non-existent, did I? I said that life is cultivated and valued amongst like species. Besides, murder, in the form of killing for sustenance can be justified as a "right" for the very sake that it provides for the continuance of life for their species.

The preservation of those lives has nothing to do with the idea that life is a basic good, but rather that these important people are more valuable to them alive than dead, or that there is a perceived need to keep them alive over others.
You're arguing semantics here. Let's not go down the path of "nothing is selfless." You can rationalize anything down to basic greed, but realistically it's not that simple.

Life is only "right" in the sence that it has withstood the forces that pressure it into nonexistence and has utilized those forces which harbor and nurture it, not "right" in a moral sence.
Morality is based on the brains rationality, which is a biological process. If we're going to talk semantics, let's be consistent.

It's hard to claim that murder is endorsed as a universal wrong, when governments consent, endorse, and plot mass-murder. Not only that, but it's been going on for at least six thousand years if you believe the Bible, longer if you don't.
Governments endorse murder as a method of preserving their way of life. But as a rule, when given a choice, people will choose life over death. It is society that cripples the basic fundamental choices that we would make as a human being. Governments and corrupted people are always going to be moving against the norm, but this doesn't negate the concept of goodness being a universal ideal.

And when you've got people running around killing others and murdering haphazardly, what are our options as a society?
Murder for the sake of murder is different than retribution and punishment. I am speaking of generalities, not specifics. Given that people do no severe harm, the default for humanity is life.

I don't really think you've either asserted or formed any solid basis for saying that "life is a basic good". I think you've formed a good basis for "certain lives are a basic good". In which case, I think the exception there undermines the entire idea.
In the animal kingdom, like species still preserve life amongst themselves as a rule. Society and our own intellect has given way to rationalizing life and death, but as I said before, without wrong doing, the default is always life with a few rare exceptions such as mental disorders and the like.

[GenocideAlive]

Governments endorse murder as a method of preserving their way of life. But as a rule, when given a choice, people will choose life over death.
Well, fundamentally, murdering you to save me doesn't really seem like a reverence for life. It seems like life is treated as a resource.
In the animal kingdom, like species still preserve life amongst themselves as a rule.
...I'm not sure if you were trying to say something else or if you were trying to go somewhere with this and never got there. But like species in the animal kingdom kill one another aaaaaaallllllll the tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime. Competition for mating, food, and habitable environs spur them to kill/maim each other over & over.

Hell, in feeding frenzies sharks occasionally don't bother to differentitate between carcass and one another. Basically, any time there's only one den to be had and there are two adult male lions, you're going to have a murder to decide whom gets to claim it.

[Nuts]

Well, fundamentally, murdering you to save me doesn't really seem like a reverence for life. It seems like life is treated as a resource.
I can't seem to understand your rationale here. People are punished because they endanger a particular way of life, ergo, the preservation of life requires us to kill one another from time to time. This does not negate the fact that life is valued over death, in fact it may even support it when you consider that murderers are put to death so as to limit the overall deaths amongst the community.

...I'm not sure if you were trying to say something else or if you were trying to go somewhere with this and never got there.
And we were getting along so well too.

But like species in the animal kingdom kill one another aaaaaaallllllll the tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime.
This is why species continue to multiply when unaffected by humans?

Competition for mating, food, and habitable environs spur them to kill/maim each other over & over.
Again, I should stress that there exceptions to the rule, as with any subject. But the picture that you paint gives the impression that species, left alone, would not propagate, which is simply not the case.

Hell, in feeding frenzies sharks occasionally don't bother to differentiate between carcass and one another. Basically, any time there's only one den to be had and there are two adult male lions, you're going to have a murder to decide whom gets to claim it.
The shark reference is rather lame considering that it's an accidental situation, don't you think? Otherwise, I would encourage you not to offer anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to a generalized assertions. I can offer numerous anecdotes that would contrast with yours, but none of it would serve to support the general ideals that we are trying to put forth.

As a rule, life is preferred over death, otherwise our ecosystem would fail to exist. If animals and humans killed without prejudice, there would have been no development of society, there would be no safety in numbers in the animal kingdom since there would be no distinction between an antelope and a fellow lion.

[Morkeliph]

I'd like to add that Killer-Whales and Siberian Tigers both have been found to "kill for pleasure." That is, the killer-whale will kill a seal without the intent of eating it, and just let it float dead in the ocean. I would be willing to bet that you could train almost any predatory animal to kill and not consume its prey, if you arranged the contingencies right. However, arguing about animals killing each other does nothing to contribute to the argument of "right" and "wrong." Just as verbal behavior is a human feature, values of right and wrong are humanly made, at least as far as we know (it would be interesting to see if one could train "moral behavior" in animals, I bet you can).

As for murder being a universal evil, the very term murder is an entirely human convention. How does murder differ from simple killing? It's all about context. The use of murder usually implies planning and some sort of malicious intent. It's interesting to note that malicious intent is generally frowned upon globally, but it can be acceptable in different contexts in different cultures. Anyone who has seen Hotel Rwanda has seen an example of this. The Hutus (generally speaking) had no qualms about killing thousands of Tutsies (yes, even murdering) and actually thought it was "right." The same goes for the Nazis in WWII; murdering Jews was actually considered "right." These sorts of occurences are unfortunately common through history, where murder is condoned in special cases. Consider Muslim fundamentalists who think it "righteousness" to murder thousands including self in suicide bombings.

So while I see your point that the preservation of life is a universal "good" (which I would argue it is only universally accepted in the case of preservation of one's own life, and this is even skeptical in the case of suicide), the taking of another's life is not in general a universal evil. It might be interesting to see if we can come up with any universal "rights" in humans. I would argue that generosity and selflessness are possibly universally deemed as morally "right."

Edit: Again, I should stress that there exceptions to the rule, as with any subject. But the picture that you paint gives the impression that species, left alone, would not propagate, which is simply not the case.I think what GenocideAlive is trying to say is that animals kill other members of their species quite frequently, to which I agree. I see how this paints a picture of nonpropogation, but points out that even animals kill their own kind, especially depending upon context. There's a time and place for killing in the animal kingdom, just as humans create times and places for killing. Where this implies any sense of morality in animals against killing one's own kind I am at a loss. I think it merely shows that killing occurs in all life forms, but I would argue that placing a moral value on killing is a human behavior. This is probably the result of human verbal behavior which allows for the creation of rules..

[Nuts]

I used animals as an example because they have the benefit of a lower level intellect which does not lend itself to societal manipulation. While animals may kill other species for fun, I am not aware of any that will kill their own species without cause. Killing for sport can be said of any species, but as with most anecdotes, this does not detract from my assertion.

In cases like Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, etc.; these are cases where society or the government has corrupted the minds of the people. People must be taught to hate, or given reason at the very least. Take any aboriginal people and ask yourself why they exist? Separated from society, if "life" were not a basic right or good, then they're existence would not be possible. If murder or "killing" was only made taboo by society, then why do these remote tribes share our misgivings for these acts?

The very existence of an organized society is proof positive that life is good, or in this context, a universal right.

Edit: In response to your edit. I am not speaking in terms of morality, I am speaking in terms of what is generally right, ergo the proper and correct action. This can be applied to animals as it is to humans. Humans apply the label of morality, whereas animals simply exist in this state. By examining animals, we can remove the influence of soceity and get an idea of what humans would do in similar situations.

[Morkeliph]

I think you make an interestng point. I would argue though that people have to be taught to value life as well as devalue it. The fact the natural environment favors people who value life is another thing. I think most people value life because people who value life are more inclined to be successful, and those peoples who don't value life tend to be eliminated by those who do (it might be an interesting study to see how the cultural value against murder is correlated to population growth and life-expectancy). However, whether it is the social environment or the natural environment that shapes our behavior is irrelevant. Either way, the behavior is shaped along with the accompanying morality. Those who are socially trained that murder is acceptable are not that different from those who are socially trained that it is unacceptable; both are trained. It is very noteworthy though that the natural environment seems to shape a value for life, and it that sense I can see where one would suggest that it is a "universal good." Then again, this seems to be primarily in the case of within a species, and even this has many exceptions (as in killing potential mating rivals).

Most importantly, an animal that kills others of its kind isn't punished for doing so by others of its species. In fact, it will likely be feared by others and in that sense I argue that in the case of animals, a morality against murder isn't existent. With humans, however, killing others can be punishable or not, and this is on the basis of moral rules that humans have contrived. These morals can differ from culture to culture and need not have any universalities at all.

Edit: In response to your edit, isn't what is right and wrong what morality is all about? Are you arguing that animals adhere to some universal "life-morality," and if so does this apply to humans and how?

Edit2: Here's that link describing Stanley Milgram's study that I promised. (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=244304&postcount=12)
http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html (http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html)

[GenocideAlive]

I can't seem to understand your rationale here. People are punished because they endanger a particular way of life, ergo, the preservation of life requires us to kill one another from time to time. This does not negate the fact that life is valued over death, in fact it may even support it when you consider that murderers are put to death so as to limit the overall deaths amongst the community.
My point is that if you're going to argue that the preservation of life is all-important, that even in circumstances where others are threatening life they themselves shouldn't be threatened. They represent life as well. Arguing some kind of mathematical "1 kill means you save 2 kills" seems intellectually bankrupt. Either life is all-important or it's not. Murder to stop murder is totally backwards and clandestine. Why not spray some Agent Orange in the air to push out all that DDT?
This is why species continue to multiply when unaffected by humans?
Um, what? At any given time, hundreds of species are dying out, and hundreds are being hybridized. Some are being stamped out by their living conditions, others are unable to compete. This statement by itself is a very poor point.
The shark reference is rather lame considering that it's an accidental situation, don't you think?
I think you're reading it wrong. In certain cases, they DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE between prey and each other; if they want a bite of meat and you're in the way, tough titty. They're frenzied, they don't fucking care. The mothers also tend to eat their pups if the pups don't leave fast enough. That's ~10 "accidental" feedings on her young. Cannibalism is horrendously widespread in the fish world, as well as the insect world; nothing "anecdotal" about it.
As a rule, life is preferred over death, otherwise our ecosystem would fail to exist. If animals and humans killed without prejudice, there would have been no development of society, there would be no safety in numbers in the animal kingdom since there would be no distinction between an antelope and a fellow lion.
Now you're just twisting words to suit your purpose; nobody said anything about "killing without prejudice".

Edit: And if you want to niggle over the development of intelligence as being a requisite ideal for an anti-murder moral, please examine Miss Jane Goodall's documentation of her chimps. They apparently murder one another and perform primitive wars as well.