An intelligent person
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:21pm
Thread Topic: An intelligent person
-
does the right thing without fear of what will happen if they don't.
I forgot who said that but its still true. -
But right and wrong is subjective. For all you know, someone's belief of the 'right thing' could be to blow up the white house.
But yeah, that is true in a way though. -
The right thing is to blow up the white house.
-
That's trueshould have used a different example uh..
HOw about, f---ing children? -
That's a tough one...
-
f---ing a cactus?
-
You can say right and wrong as being a creation of man if you want, because you are absolutely right. But that creation is almost a neccessity, as I've found in studying both utilitarian and rule-based philosophy. Think about this: a man is in a car crash and rushed to the ER. There's a 95% chance that even with treatment, he will die. However, there are 3 patients all in need of different organs. They will also die unless they get organs soon. Do you care for the man in the car crash, despite the odds against his survival, and risk losing three other patients, or do you let the man die and give his organs to the other patients? A utilitarian would say you should let him die. This is a bit of troubling philosophy for most people, and it also kind of indentifies why there is a need for "right" and "wrong", even if right and wrong are things we create, because if we were take utilitarianism to its logical extreme conclusion, our society would be kind of scary. Rules and social ethics are created as a way to maintain order in society. So the definition of "right" is what most allows us to live together peacefully, and the definition of "wrong" is something that either fails in keeping peace or rejects the very idea of it.
-
Right and wrong are all subjective. If you feel you're doing the right thing, explain why to the people who disagree. But no matter what, own up for your actions and defend your claims.
-
And that is an opinion. One I agree with you on by the way. But still an opinion.
Like I said, if you do something, you better be able to explain why to the people who disagree. That same logic applies today. 500 years ago, unwedded sex was a crime punishable by public execution. But as societies morals change, so do our laws. So do what we view as right and wrong.
The majority of our populace disagrees witht he idea of f---ing a child. So we deem it wrong, and it is a criminal act. But just like unwedded sex, as a law and as a moral standpoint, it is subjective to the time. -
It will always be wrong to have sex with children because it isn't the same as a relationship between two consenting adults. If it were to be become acceptable for people to have sex with children, consent basically goes out the window. Could it become socially acceptable? I think it almost certainly will become socially acceptable to rape both children and adults. Humanity seems to be in a continuing state of devolution, so it could definitely happen if we're all still here in 500 years.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
