Who decides what is good and bad?

[Ifreann]

Nobody, anybody, and everybody. There, I've just saved you a thread.

[Big Jim P]

We each do. Each for him (or her) self. For good or ill. If each of us does not have that right, then our whole house of cards falls.

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

It is a behavioral aberration even from the standards of animals.

We don't know why animals do what they do. Two dogs get in a fight and one of them winds up dead, maybe it was over territory or status or a bone. Or maybe the one dog just thought "Fuck it. I'll kill him." Maybe the female preying mantis chops off the head of her mate because she's hungry, maybe eating him was just an afterthought and the real motivation was "Death sex is such a fucking turn on. Oh my god, oh my god, look at that blood. Oh yes, it feels so good." Maybe the female great white attempts to eat her newly born young because she's just so hungry after giving birth, or maybe she's just pissed off that their deadbeat father didn't hang around after knocking her up and the only way she can express her killing rage is with her mouth.

On the OP. One has the right to all actions within their physical capacity. If you can kill a 100 prostitutes and eat their brains, then it is within your right to do so. You might even call it good that you did so, it was an expression of yourself. However, the social contract exists to limit such self-expression, becuase most people would rather waive their right to kill randomly than be killed randomly. You can choose not to participate in that contract if you wish, but then you lose it's protections. Theoretically, we're supposed to have this thing called a penal system which exists to punish and reform people so that they can reenter the contract and live their healthily (or be permanently removed if they are incorrigible), but the US system fails pretty hard at that.

[Veblenia]

Dammit, I just got a call from Chulthu, he reminded my of my life contract where Article VIII, para. 4, sub-section 3.2 states: you decide what is good and bad, good luck negotiating that with the rest of society.

....wait a sec. He put that in YOUR contract, too?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Who decides? On these forums, me. And a handful of others. Aren't you the lucky ones.

(No, could not resist. Carry on.)

[Pope Joan]

Today we have no universally recognized moral authorities.

By default we are left with the media, and such persons as Nancy Grace, who will execute the accused first and gather evidence later.

[Coccygia]

This question is so stupid it could only occur in NSG or to an ethicist.

[Land of Germany]

This question is so stupid it could only occur in NSG or to an ethicist.

I'm glad you express yourself without giving reason to why it is stupid, leaving you to appear as the idiot who calls math useless.

[Sociobiology]

collective discussion
here is a great video discussing how we form and how we should form morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=player_embedded
It is one of the best examinations of why morality should be constructed by rational argument.

[Land of Germany]

collective discussion
here is a great video discussing how we form and how we should form morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=player_embedded
It is one of the best examinations of why morality should be constructed by rational argument.

That video did not answer how morals can be determined with logic. Morals are not based on scenarios; however, in Scenario 5, he said that "moral behavior is doing what is right..." He never did define what "right" is.
Again, with the majority of people on this forum being anti-theist (not just atheist), and pretty much wishing that any theist died or stopped believing, I will have no voice in this argument, regardless of what I say.

And here's a video, not on topic, but I like it. I don't like the title of the video, but I like the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHIGVEPvqxg&feature=related

[Coccygia]

This question is so stupid it could only occur in NSG or to an ethicist.

I'm glad you express yourself without giving reason to why it is stupid, leaving you to appear as the idiot who calls math useless.

Strawman. Math =/= Blatantly idiotic question. And if you can't figure out why it's stupid, you look like an idiot yourself. Don't worry, though, you should have plenty of company in this thread.

[Land of Germany]

I'm glad you express yourself without giving reason to why it is stupid, leaving you to appear as the idiot who calls math useless.

Strawman. Math =/= Blatantly idiotic question. And if you can't figure out why it's stupid, you look like an idiot yourself. Don't worry, though, you should have plenty of company in this thread.

I guess I'm an idiot, just like every single philosopher and thinker. (I don't claim to be a philosopher.) If you would take a second to not flame, and explain yourself, I might be able to understand why it is stupid, you know, we idiots need to be talked down too. kant rap are heds arund the hole thing, ya now?

[Nacional-Socialist Russia]

killing is neutral,because it depends of how bad/good the victim is,if you kill hitler,you deserve a blowjob and a free ticket to heaven,but you kill a baby,you deserve a rape and free ticket to hell.

What if you kill baby Hitler?

well,people would bash you,but god would get you a free entrance,because previnition is better than remediating.

[Land of Germany]

What if you kill baby Hitler?

well,people would bash you,but god would get you a free entrance,because previnition is better than remediating.

But he didn't ever do anything wrong. That would be "wrong" to kill an effectively innocent baby, even if he would grow to be Adolf Hitler.

[Autash]

If the survival of the human race is the objective, and to kill a human being is considered antithetical to that objective; but killing him is justifiable if and only if he poses a greater risk to the survival of the human race while alive; then if the man killed did not pose said threat, then it was not justifiable to kill him. However, the survival of the species must be the objective, and killing a human being must be antithetical to that objective, in order for the argument to be true.

According to most humans, survival of the species is the objective.

(S & K) & (J <-> T) -> (!T -> !J) <-> (S & K)
S & K
!T
--therefore-- !J

I'm sure if the argument were properly analyzed there would be at least one thing wrong with it, but you get the idea.

[The Parkus Empire]

Who decides? On these forums, me. And a handful of others. Aren't you the lucky ones.

(No, could not resist. Carry on.)

You write the rules?

[Nacional-Socialist Russia]

well,people would bash you,but god would get you a free entrance,because previnition is better than remediating.

But he didn't ever do anything wrong. That would be "wrong" to kill an effectively innocent baby, even if he would grow to be Adolf Hitler.

well,but since god knows what is going to happen,you would only get fucked on earth,on heaven the reward would be higher,because you prevented the death of 50000000 people.

[Land of Germany]

But he didn't ever do anything wrong. That would be "wrong" to kill an effectively innocent baby, even if he would grow to be Adolf Hitler.

well,but since god knows what is going to happen,you would only get fucked on earth,on heaven the reward would be higher,because you prevented the death of 50000000 people.

If God wanted Hitler dead, he would have killed him. God doesn't answer to anybody, but everybody answers to Him. He needs no reason other than "I want to." He is God, He can do whatever His HUGE heart desires. Other He doesn't. He abides, to the letter, the same rules we do, or the rules we should follow, but we (humans) don't.

[Tavalu]

Well basically we as people, in order to form those things called civilizations, realized it was not possible without rules.

We allow certain people the authority to make such rules, and who decide what is "right" and "wrong".

Such things are needed for a civilization to thrive, and as a civilization we gave key people the right to dictate such things.

If this was 5,000 BC and we were all barbaric, well, it wouldn't matter. But as a society we have decided what is deemed right and wrong.

[Land of Germany]

Well basically we as people, in order to form those things called civilizations, realized it was not possible without rules.

We allow certain people the authority to make such rules, and who decide what is "right" and "wrong".

Such things are needed for a civilization to thrive, and as a civilization we gave key people the right to dictate such things.

If this was 5,000 BC and we were all barbaric, well, it wouldn't matter. But as a society we have decided what is deemed right and wrong.

The Aztecs (or was it the Mayans (this discrepancy should not skew your judgement of the validity of the rebuttal)) were a thriving civilization, and they ate people. That's obviously not moral by today's standards, so that logic doesn't quite work.
Besides, authority doesn't set morals, it sets laws. Following authority and their laws is just obedience, not being a 'good' person.

[Trotskylvania]

This is a very boring question

[Risottia]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

To me, it's enough that the killer is a threat to security of individuals and society.

[Tavalu]

Well basically we as people, in order to form those things called civilizations, realized it was not possible without rules.

We allow certain people the authority to make such rules, and who decide what is "right" and "wrong".

Such things are needed for a civilization to thrive, and as a civilization we gave key people the right to dictate such things.

If this was 5,000 BC and we were all barbaric, well, it wouldn't matter. But as a society we have decided what is deemed right and wrong.

The Aztecs were a thriving civilization, and they ate people. That's obviously not moral by today's standards, so that logic doesn't quite work.
Besides, authority doesn't set morals, it sets laws. Following authority and their laws is just obedience, not being a 'good' person.

Yes but at the time they considered that right.

It is civilization and society that sets the standards for good.

Society in the past has always told us what is good and bad.

The Aztec society thought eating people was fine, and so it was alright to do.

Our society deems in bad, so if you do such an act now, you will be labeled as bad.

Society as a whole deems what is good or bad, it wouldn't be bad, if society didn't make it that way.

But keep in mind there is no "Universal" good or bad, many are common in our world, but good and bad are terms that vary by the culture you are in.

[Land of Germany]

Yes but at the time they considered that right.

It is civilization and society that sets the standards for good.

Society in the past has always told us what is good and bad.

The Aztec society thought eating people was fine, and so it was alright to do.

Our society deems in bad, so if you do such an act now, you will be labeled as bad.

Society as a whole deems what is good or bad, it wouldn't be bad, if society didn't make it that way.

That still doesn't work, because you said for a civilization to work, morals have to be present, and if civilizations exist on different moral standards, then you saying that morals are a necessity for civilization is false.

And so "Society" is the deciding factor again?
What is society? Your mom and dad and the extended family? The city you live in? The country?
In New York, gay marriage is now moral and legal.
In Texas, gay marriage isn't moral and isn't legal.
Are we not the same society?

[Trotskylvania]

That still doesn't work, because you said for a civilization to work, morals have to be present, and if civilizations exist on different moral standards, then you saying that morals are a necessity for civilization is false.

Not in the slightest. His contention merely specified that moral standards had to exist and be enforced to regulate behavior in order for society to exist. He did not specify the content of those moral standards, nor did he preclude different moral systems fulfilling the same role.