|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th November 2012, 04:44 PM | #1 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
No "Right" and "Wrong" Without A Higher Authority
I've had this discussion with several people (and I'm sure this topic is not new to most skeptics) but I'm curious how people here will respond to the assertion that without a higher authority which decides what is right and wrong, there is no "right" or "wrong" only "currently acceptable to society".
Unless an individual or group of individuals accept some higher authority/power as the ultimate decider of "right" and "wrong" then the concepts really don't exist. They are merely terms joined to whatever society at the time deems acceptable or not. I'll take an extreme example, murder. I would wager that religious or not most sane people feel that murder is wrong/bad/unacceptable. Whether simply because "God said so" or "it's counter productive to the survival of the species", I'm pretty sure most of us are opposed to it. I will assert however that you cannot argue that murder is actually "wrong" without an appeal to a higher moral authority. Keep in mind I am not advocating anarchy or abandonment of trying to lead a good life. This is not an argument that those who don't believe in God cannot have morals or be good people. This is simply an assertion that without an appeal to God or a higher power, or something that defines right/wrong or good/evil you can't label anyone's actions as such. |
5th November 2012, 04:50 PM | #2 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 133
|
Why is right right and wrong wrong if some god says so? Is it that gods opinion or is it that they just ARE? Why should I follow what this god says is right or wrong even if I disagree with it?
|
5th November 2012, 05:00 PM | #3 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
If we accept the premise stated in the thread title as valid, the "higher authority" does not have to be divine. It can be the needs of the community as a whole, and/or the drive present in almost all humans towards altruism, which has an evolutionary basis.
|
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
5th November 2012, 05:00 PM | #4 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I'm not asserting that something is right or wrong simply because someone says God says it is right or wrong, whether or not you believe in/agree with said God. I'm only asserting that we cannot apply the labels of right/wrong to another person's actions without an appeal to a higher authority. If person A kills someone, person B cannot say that what they did was wrong without a claim that some authority they believe is binding to both parties says so. At best they can claim that person A's actions have negative consequences.
|
5th November 2012, 05:02 PM | #5 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
In that same vein, if murder is wrong, why is it OK for god to say it's sometimes right? Look at the current mainstream protestant ideas about divorce, and tell me with a straight face that "right" and"wrong" are not subject to social norms, even among those who thing god tells them what to do.
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
5th November 2012, 05:05 PM | #6 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
That is correct. The higher authority for the purposes of this discussion does not necessarily have to be divine. The important part is that is must be a mutually shared authority of what makes something right or wrong. Which is why in my OP I more specifically stated that we can only really call it "currently acceptable to society."
|
5th November 2012, 05:05 PM | #7 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Right and wrong are subjective, to a degree. Groups of humans collectively determine what is right and wrong. Curiously, many of the people I've encountered who claim access to an objective morality determined by a god or gods, will find excuses to dismiss various edicts from the claimed source of this morality, demonstrating that their "objective" morality is as subjective as anyone else's.
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
5th November 2012, 05:05 PM | #8 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,383
|
Morality evolved. It's a brain function like happiness and sadness. There's plenty of evidence of moral behavior in the animal kingdom. No god needed.
|
5th November 2012, 05:07 PM | #9 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
5th November 2012, 05:10 PM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,024
|
You seem to be applying a continuum: wrong unacceptable neutral acceptable right. My question is why you need the outside ends? Is wrong somehow wronger than unacceptable? If so, how do you know?
Acceptable and unacceptable are good words, because they are clearly value judgments, and value judgments require an actor. Acceptable to whom? Unacceptable according to whom? The answers "society" or "your species" seem sufficient. There's no need to go leaping for absolute versions of the same judgments. I prefer to use words that denote value judgments for things that are value judgments (murder is unacceptable), and reserve "right/wrong" to use as synonyms for "true/false" or "correct/incorrect" (1 + 1 = 3 is wrong). No power higher than agreement is required. |
5th November 2012, 05:11 PM | #11 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 405
|
Welcome Arangarx. Stick around, you should have fun here.
|
__________________
There are literally dozens of us nationwide. |
|
5th November 2012, 05:13 PM | #12 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,450
|
For an even clearer illustration of how the ideas "right" and "wrong" are emergent, and changing, properties of societies rather than absolute truths, compare the way any of the following groups were treated in Biblical times (including by the writers of the Bible) with how they are treated today:
(a) slaves; (b) women; or (c) members of racial/ethnic groups other than those in power (often synonymous with (a)). |
5th November 2012, 05:28 PM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
5th November 2012, 05:40 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
There being no god to pass the buck to, individuals will decide, rightly or wrongly, what is right for them, and their society with its laws.. will rule on that perception.
Eliminating god from the menu simplifies matters a lot. |
5th November 2012, 05:52 PM | #15 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
This biggest issue with this line of argument is that it makes right and wrong arbitrary. "It is wrong because <higher power> says it is wrong" implies that the higher power could have determined that it was right, instead. If it isn't arbitrary on the part of the higher power, then it clearly has its origins elsewhere, and the higher power is just a puppet as well. Mind you, I am a moral relativist, so as long as the determination between right and wrong can be justified, I am OK with rights and wrongs swapping places on occasion. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
5th November 2012, 05:54 PM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 7,144
|
I've personally reframed this issue in a way I find much more helpful.
I think in terms of healthy/unhealthy: this in regards to physical, mental, emotional, and social well being. Of course within this there can be differences in priority and even conflicts. But since I don't need to be a moral perfectionist or the "good guy." I am compassionate with myself and others for all the unhealthy behavior we are weak to. Moral Authority isn't necessary for learning to be kind. And people addicted to Moral Authority are often very unkind. |
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown |
|
5th November 2012, 06:10 PM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Hmmm my nommed essay in the TLA addresses this specifically but from the Atheist perspective:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=246903 check it out. |
5th November 2012, 06:31 PM | #18 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
As a bit of a side note, you know about the Euthyphro dilemma?
As for your post... subjective morality is an interesting topic. Your assertion that arguing that something is "wrong" requires an appeal to a higher moral authority is, partially correct, though, on one level, at least. However, the higher moral authority is best explained by evolution/biology at its base and, in something of an emergent manner, society. Society often works as a stabilizing factor to propagate and promote similar arbitrary sets of values that tend to increase the success of the society. On a different level, versions of good and evil tend to be remarkably subjective in practice, depending on the assumptions used as bases to reach the conclusion that something is good or evil. Given that they are, quite obviously, constructs, they can be freely used accurately and potentially both for the exact same actions, so long as there is reasonable justification, which generally comes from differing sets of arbitrary bases. To reference your murder example... I do have to ask, where's the line between what counts as good or neutral killings and bad killing, which is usually what people mean when they say murder? Do you think that it has or has not changed over time or been substantially different for various societies? |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
5th November 2012, 06:32 PM | #19 |
Scholar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 109
|
You know what I love about skeptics? That we actually think about how these issues are derived. Religion wants you to turn off your mind.
I've always thought that the religionists who ask this question must be the ones who believe that human beings are inherently bad. I mean, there are so many foundations for moral judgments that don't involve God. The sociological (fitting in with the peer group), the evolutionary (need to maintain the tribe's trust), the practical (wrong leads to lack of friends or even jail), the emotional (treating others well often gives us a pleasant feeling). I think the core nonauthoritarian reason for murder being considered wrong is a combination of the practical and the empathetic: if it's okay to kill people, then it's okay to kill ME, and I don't want to be killed. |
5th November 2012, 06:41 PM | #20 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
That's all there has ever been. The imaginary friend has no real power over our behavior.
I recently heard Kent Hovind say "without the fear of God I'd be raping, stealing, killing," and I believe he would be. That's the abysmal standard of morality people like him have. I've never been religion, and I've never been on a rampage like Hovind seems to long for. |
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
5th November 2012, 06:53 PM | #21 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
|
I absolutely agree. Without God or any fear of God, I refrain from raping, stealing and killing. I don't say this makes me some moral paragon. In fact, I think most people refrain from gross or even petty acts of evil regardless of their belief or lack of belief in God.
It's wrong to harm people. It's right to help them. By extension, it's wrong to harm a living thing if you can survive without doing so. It's also wrong to t=destroy the environment and to grossly pollute it. It's right to help the environment. All of these assertions I've just made seem axiomatic to me. I find them to be universally (as opposed to situationally) true, though not absolutely true (i.e. in every single case). I see all this as being true without having to believe in any sort of god. |
5th November 2012, 08:06 PM | #22 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,812
|
If God actually existed, I'd probably be in favor of raping, stealing, murdering, genociding, and so on, just to trash the **** out of God's beloved reality. Screw Him!
Trash it all! Tear it down! Tear it down! ETA: No, I still wouldn't. However, it's the thought that counts. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
5th November 2012, 08:10 PM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Heartattack And Vine
(Tom Waits 1980) Liar liar with your pants on fire White spades hangin' on the telephone wire Gamblers reevaluate along the dotted line You'll never recognize yourself on heartattack and vine Doctor, lawyer, beggar man thief Philly Joe remarkable looks on in disbelief If you want a taste of madness, you'll have to wait in line You'll probably see someone you know on heartattack and vine Boney's high on china white, Shorty found a punk Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk Well this stuff will probably kill you, let's do another line What you say you meet me down on heartattack and vine See that little Jersey girl in the see-through top With the peddle pushers sucking on a soda pop Well I bet she's still a virgin but it's only twenty-five 'til nine You can see a million of 'em on heartattack and vine Better off in Iowa against your scrambled eggs Than crawling down Cahuenga on a broken pair of legs You'll find your ignorance is blissful every goddamn time Your're waitin' for the RTD on heartattack and vine Boney's high on china white, Shorty found a punk Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk Well this stuff will probably kill you, let's do another line What you say you meet me down on heartattack and vine Liar liar with your pants on fire White spades hangin' on the telephone wire Gamblers reevaluate along the dotted line You'll never recognize yourself on heartattack and vine Doctor, lawyer, beggar man thief Philly Joe remarkable looks on in disbelief If you want a taste of madness, you'll have to wait in line You'll probably see someone you know on heartattack and vine See that little Jersey girl in the see-through top With the peddle pushers sucking on a soda pop Well I bet she's still a virgin but it's only twenty-five 'til nine You can see a million of 'em on heartattack and vine Boney's high on china white, Shorty found a punk Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk Well this stuff will probably kill you, let's do another line What you say you meet me down on heartattack and vine |
5th November 2012, 09:13 PM | #24 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
6th November 2012, 01:43 AM | #25 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
Of course even with a higher power, there is no true right or wrong either. Only what is 'currently acceptable to the authority' or more accurately 'only what society agrees is the correct interpretation of what is currently acceptable to the authority'
Right and wrong have to be assessed in a societal context otherwise they are meaningless; which is generally where religion falls down as they have a largely static definition of right and wrong which does not alter based on new information and/or changes in society. Does the Bible have anything specific to say on illegal downloading? Do most of us in 2012 really need to know the 'right' way to slaughter an animal? And yes, it is entirely possible to label someone's actions as wrong without the appeal to any higher authority. I probably do it at least half a dozen times a day. Its merely an expression of your own personal opinion. The problem is how you then convince others to share your view - the least possible convincing way to attempt it being the 'because God says so' justification |
6th November 2012, 01:48 AM | #26 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
I don't necessarily find them true but they are a good basis for the start of a discussion. At some point we find a common ground and agree the rules for society. These become culturally embedded and everyone starts to generally agree on them.
I don't think there is anything magical about murder, rape or theft but I don't want them to happen to me so I'm quite happy to go along with the idea that they are 'wrong' as, it seems, are most people. Incidentally, has there ever been a single case of an atheist killing, raping or stealing and then justifying by claiming there is no God so these things are not wrong? |
6th November 2012, 01:59 AM | #27 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 766
|
People instructed by such higher authority steer planes into buildings, blow themselves up on public places killing innocents, burn others on the stake. Simply because they felt the others weren't "right" enough.
People choose their "higher authority" by themselves, projecting their ideals on it. They narcistically delude themselves into believing that their ideals reflect some divine will. That doesn't mean though that "right" or "wrong" just depended on what's currently acceptable to society. There is empathy common to us which is neither dictated by a god nor by public opinion and which determines right and wrong. The believe that right or wrong must come from higher authority presupposes that everyone is a sociopath. But even if the world was full of sociopaths and one could then make them believe in a higher authority, the outcome wouldn't necessarily be "right", as the ones steering planes into buildings demonstrated. |
6th November 2012, 02:28 AM | #28 |
Back Pew Heckler
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 745
|
This. It's all very appealing to talk about a higher power telling us what to do, but given the huge amount of disagreement between even the people who believe that to be true, what practical use would it be? Anyone advancing an argument like this should be made to define exactly what they mean by it:
How do we objectively determine the instructions of the higher authority? Show your working. Please answer with particular reference to slavery, circumcision and dietary laws, and variations in the "absolute moral code" over time. Even if they can give a halfway convincing answer to that question, it will probably involve an appeal to the few things religions tend to agree on (don't murder, don't steal, etc), so the next question is how they know whether that moral code arose because of God, or because of basic community survival needs. And then, as mentioned above, there's Euthyphro. Like the majority of apologetics, it only looks good until you subject it to examination, when it just crumbles away. |
__________________
My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger |
|
6th November 2012, 02:47 AM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
How should it differ from applying other labels? Do we require a higher authority to label the sky blue?
"The sky is blue." "That's just your subjective perception." "Yes. And you can examine me -- my eyes, my sense of color, my nervous system -- and decide whether I am constituted to take a good measurement of the sky's color." "But we need a higher authority than your opinion to settle the matter." "Why? Isn't the matter settled in my own head to my own satisfaction?" "Yes, but is the sky really blue?" "Are you asking me? I said it was. From what perspective, other than my own, should I make such judgements? If I take an artist's opinion (who says it looks a bit more like a teal this morning) over my own as having more authority, am I not just judging the artist where before I judged the sky? By what authority am I now to label the artist as authoritative?" Turtles all the way down. |
6th November 2012, 02:48 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
Unless you can provide us with an example of a moral code provably handed down by this 'higher authority' then the choice is between whatever society at the time deems acceptable or not and whatever some guy in religious paraphernalia deems (or deemed) acceptable or not. I'll go with society thanks it's not perfect but at least it's more open to change.
|
6th November 2012, 02:54 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I think we need a new category: not yet determined.
So, for example, if you ask whether legalizing abortion is right or wrong, you can take a sense of the culture and say it isn't clearly either. The answer might be: 75% right and 25% wrong (or some such breakdown). Or, alternatively, you could say, "As a people, we have not determined the answer yet, although as an individual, I think this..." I like the idea that right and wrong can be discovered, instead of the usual requirement of having an immediate, eternal and unchallengeable answer at hand. |
6th November 2012, 03:18 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
|
Welcome to the forum Arangarx. You should know that we talk about this here on this forum on a nearly monthly basis, give or take. You know there are many things you consider wrong that you wouldn't based on your cultural upbringing. If you're from a society like mine in Oklahoma City, you probably feel marrying a third or fourth wife feels very wrong, intrinsically wrong. You may feel other people are permitted if they feel it's not wrong, but many people here find such a thing shameful.
You're saying there's a cut off point, and a magical cut off point when all is said and done. As if you acknowledge to a certain degree what you feel is right or wrong can be manipulated by upbringing and conditioning, but suddenly that degree stops when things are severely important to you. As if meaning or significance just magically floats around in the universe without an observer. This would only make sense in the mythological rule system of theism, where there is an authority observing all things which deems this concept, (which is all it is by the way, a concept) right or wrong. Why do you think some cultural notions of right or wrong are subjective, and some are intrinsic to the universe? My sense of right or wrong evolved, it is an emergent behavior, because being a social animal is a very successful and versatile niche made possible by our environment. My sense of right or wrong, my conviction, it feels so strongly to me that I will not compromise it in any way to a point. You are mistaking the strength of your conviction for some kind of intrinsic character of the universe. You require that to be so, otherwise the strength of your conviction would not rationally match in your mind with the idea you're just like the people you disagree with on what's right or wrong, and that bothers you. But it shouldn't. If you found out without any doubt that what you feel is right or wrong only feels that way because you were conditioned to feel that way, do you really think you would lose your appreciation for what is right or wrong? Would you harm your children? Your friends? You're claiming there is a magical barrier in the universe which keeps you from doing that, and you feel that's logical? |
6th November 2012, 03:51 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,766
|
Pretty much every thread about morality bogs down in the "relativist v absolutist" mire.
Rules for living would seem to be best if based on how we live and what we are. Authority is what we make it, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Start with objective truth and agreement on subjective truth may be possible, but if vested interests prevent agreement, then the only way to achieve moral certainty is probably to exterminate everyone who disagrees. It's been tried, but it turned out the dissidents had more bullets. |
6th November 2012, 09:09 AM | #34 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,383
|
|
6th November 2012, 09:11 AM | #35 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I don't think this one is very hard to explain even when religious. If you believe in God as the arbiter of what is right and wrong, then there really is no disconnect if God gives a blanket statement that you shouldn't do something but gives direct commandments/permission to do said act, such as killing. If I'm your boss and give a blanket "commandment" that thou shalt not use the laser printer, but then give one person permission, that's just how it is because I'm your boss. I know a laser printer is not on the same level of murder but I believe the concept holds.
|
6th November 2012, 09:16 AM | #36 |
Eats shoots and leaves.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,217
|
|
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine "Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker |
|
6th November 2012, 09:35 AM | #37 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Murder is wrong on a pure economical standpoint too. A person which could have contributed is cut short and cannot contribute anymore, on the contrary disposition of the remain cost.
ETA: murder by abrupt removal of the person also weaken the societal connection, add distrust between people and very clearly if left uncontrolled lead to very small group of people (possibly loner) only. Assertion has been falsified. ETA: unless you see pure economical viewpoint, and social order (as opposed to chaos if people can be mrudered willy nilly) to be a higher authority but then you will be alone. |
6th November 2012, 09:36 AM | #38 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I guess it all comes down to how one defines "right" and "wrong". I think as I've read the replies, what I've realized is that saying that something can't be defined as right or wrong without an appeal to a higher moral authority is almost a given, because the way I'm using the words it's basically a given. I'm using "right" and "wrong" to define what is or isn't morally acceptable regardless of public opinion, which actually narrows my definitions of what can define right or wrong to something higher than man.
Further down DallasDad mentioned that it seems I'm putting things on a continuum - wrong unacceptable neutral acceptable right. Actually the way I've always viewed things is on two independent spectrums. Right - neutral - Wrong Acceptable to society - neutral - Not Acceptable to Society It seems to me that you either believe in God as the decider of right and wrong and follow those two independent scales or you you believe in man/society as the definer of right and wrong in which case the continuum becomes: Acceptable or "Right" - Neutral - Not Acceptable or "Wrong" As to people choosing which edicts of morality to follow or not follow (from the same moral source), I think that's just how people are. As they say, nobody is perfect. |
6th November 2012, 09:38 AM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
6th November 2012, 09:39 AM | #40 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,706
|
What a load of horse ****. That's how i would respond. I'm perfectly able to hold opinions about what is right for me and wrong for me without being a brain dead idiot who believes in the divine.
How? Simple: If it's right for me, then it's right. If it's wrong for me, then it's wrong. If it's right for me but wrong for "society" then what does "societies" view matter beyond practicalities? Likewise if it displeases me, annoys me or outright hurts me but is "acceptable to society" then why should i care? |
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|