# Let's have a conversation



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

I will start it with one simple question. What makes one person right and another person wrong?



This is in reference to the Robert E. Lee thread, but let's please talk in general terms. Seth


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I would have to ask a general question first.
In regards to what? Personal experience? Third party opinion? History as they know it?


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Well that's easy, if I agree with them then they are right!


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

Well there is the truth but there is also how each person sees the "truth" in their eyes which may not exactly be the truth. I need more coffee first


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

This is going to be an interesting thread... I'd have to say that it is the *perspective *that makes one person right and another person wrong.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Seth said:


> I will start it with one simple question. What makes one person right and another person wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> This is in reference to the Robert E. Lee thread, but let's please talk in general terms. Seth



In the other thread, I think the focus was not so much about what made individual people right or wrong, but what right and wrong actually meant morally in different eras based on that time, religion, societal mores, etc.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

gleepish said:


> This is going to be an interesting thread... I'd have to say that it is the *perspective *that makes one person right and another person wrong.



Good answer, how do you know which perspective is right in any given argument?


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> I would have to ask a general question first.
> In regards to what? Personal experience? Third party opinion? History as they know it?



All of the above, if all of the above are taken into consideration during the argument.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> In the other thread, I think the focus was not so much about what made individual people right or wrong, but what right and wrong actually meant morally in different eras based on that time, religion, societal mores, etc.


Yep, makes sense. So does right and wrong change with the times? What is right today going to be wrong tomorrow? At what point will I wake up one morning and be wrong about what I know is right today?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Then speaking loosely, if my brother in law says he is no longer a homosexual, then by this rule, he is right.
If my wife had an abortion and regrets it and says it was wrong, then by this rule she is right.
If my neighbor moves to a country without applicable laws, buys slaves to work his plantation, then by his rule, he is right to do so.
If my son says he is a transgender, then 3 months later changes his mind and states that to him it is nothing more than social reprogramming, who is anyone to tell him he is wrong?
The issue above is that truth becomes subjective. Ironically, many who might disagree with the above ie do not believe in absolute truths.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Thanks in advance to all who participate appropriately in this thread. I believe it could be a lot of fun. Seth


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Seth said:


> Yep, makes sense. So does right and wrong change with the times? What is right today going to be wrong tomorrow? At what point will I wake up one morning and be wrong about what I know is right today?


Not just the times, but the place. If you were born and raised in a Muslim country to a Muslim family and everyone around you was too, what would your concept of right and wrong be?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Seth said:


> Good answer, how do you know which perspective is right in any given argument?


I would say that perspective is one of the trickiest things because like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, I think it is the societies acceptance or refusal as a whole that decides what is right and what is wrong. As society evolves and changes so does the line between right and wrong. 

You see that in today's society, at one time gay men and women were not tolerated in 'mainstream' society but now they are welcomed. At one time learning a trade was the best education you could have, now that's not as common as a liberal arts degree. At one time a young girl was married by the time she was 15, often to a much older man and that was ok, now it's child molestation.

In order to understand the why's and the how's of something in the past, you have to look at the society in all aspects, you can't apply current standards. If you do that you end up basing your entire argument on flawed logic.

(edited to correct punctuation)


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Man doesn't create truth. Man actually cannot create anything.
Everything we are or have was created by God. All we do is take it and make something from it.
Man cannot create another color other than from what was already here.
Folks love to believe in their own moral code, but we never created right and wrong. There was right and wrong and then there was man.
If we did, then it would always be subjective and flawed.
Your truth is fine for you until it is determined to be for the better good of everyone. Then one or more truths become the dominant and the others are minimized or denigrated.
That is why absolutes are hated by certain segments. Absolutes cannot be modified to suit a generation or a cultural outgrowth or a period of "enlightenment."
When it comes to what is truth, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I feel that actions that hurt another person for no reason caused by the person injured are self-evident in being wrong. That is basic. For example, murder, rape, slavery, and assault. You know from the moment you did it, it was wrong even if you can find ways in your mind to justify it. You may not understand it as a child but as an adult you can easily figure it out for yourself if you want to. Exceptions would be with those that have a mental deficit or brain damage.

After that, it comes from whether there is proof or facts of one or the other or from indoctrination by those that came before you.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> Not just the times, but the place. If you were born and raised in a Muslim country to a Muslim family and everyone around you was too, what would your concept of right and wrong be?



Dunno, I was born into a hillbilly family in NC. I doubt I'd like sausage gravy like I do now. Which is WRONG.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

gleepish said:


> I would say that perspective is one of the trickiest things because like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, I think it is the societies acceptance or refusal as a whole that decides what is right and what is wrong. As society evolves and changes so does the line between right and wrong.
> 
> You see that in today's society, at one time gay men and women were not tolerated in 'mainstream' society but now they are welcomed. At one time learning a trade was the best education you could have, now that's not as common as a liberal arts degree. At one time a young girl was married by the time she was 15, often to a much older man and that was ok, now it's child molestation.
> 
> ...


No one's logic is flawed to them.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I feel that actions that hurt another person for no reason caused by the person injured are self-evident in being wrong. That is basic. For example, murder, rape, slavery, and assault. You know from the moment you did it, it was wrong even if you can find ways in your mind to justify it. You may not understand it as a child but as an adult you can easily figure it out for yourself if you want to. Exceptions would be with those that have a mental deficit or brain damage.
> 
> After that, it comes from whether there is proof or facts of one or the other or from indoctrination by those that came before you.



Ah, you feel. Not picking on you, (I feel too) but why do your feelings make me wrong? I have never raped nor owned another human, but I have taken a life and I have been the aggressor in an altercation. I believed then and believe now that the world is a better place for my actions. Am I wrong?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Seth said:


> No one's logic is flawed to them.


You are correct--we see examples of that here on a routine basis. And the thing is, that opinions are a completely different thing than what we, as a society, see as right and wrong even though they do go hand in hand. The opinion of the man who steals because he is poor is much different than the opinion of the man he steals from, yet stealing is still perceived to be wrong.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

What is your perspective on this, Seth?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> Ah, you feel. Not picking on you, (I feel too) but why do your feelings make me wrong? I have never raped nor owned another human, but I have taken a life and I have been the aggressor in an altercation. I believed then and believe now that the world is a better place for my actions. Am I wrong?


Details matter.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Details matter to the person forming an opinion and a personal judgment, and that is where it ends.
Thus right becomes right to the person who made the action; not to someone not involved.
At least, with subjective truth, that is how it works.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Is your question what is "right" or "wrong" from a legal sense?

Or

Is your question more from a moral sense?

Very different questions.

I think this is "wrong" from a moral sense, but well within our legal rights -
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world.

For more, read https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-relativism​


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I feel that actions that hurt another person for no reason caused by the person injured are self-evident in being wrong. That is basic. For example, murder, rape, slavery, and assault. You know from the moment you did it, it was wrong even if you can find ways in your mind to justify it. You may not understand it as a child but as an adult you can easily figure it out for yourself if you want to. Exceptions would be with those that have a mental deficit or brain damage.
> 
> After that, it comes from whether there is proof or facts of one or the other or from indoctrination by those that came before you.


Indoctrination. Perfect word, what makes a person, of their own volition, overcome their indoctrination?



painterswife said:


> Details matter.


I appreciate that, and I will share details at a later date, however, bear in mind that you will only hear my truth. There may be someone else' truth out there. We can discuss it later.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> What is your perspective on this, Seth?



It's a topic that I've spent a lot of alone time pondering, usually running in mental circles. I have been in discussions where my eyes have been opened to different viewpoints that were dead right, but opposed to mine. Yet I still was firmly resolve that I was right. Or maybe, to put it better, that neither of us was wrong. I've also noticed that the more one side demands that they are right, the more I stick to my opinion, I think that is the nature of many of us. WHY?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> Indoctrination. Perfect word, what makes a person, of their own volition, overcome their indoctrination?
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that, and I will share details at a later date, however, bear in mind that you will only hear my truth. There may be someone else' truth out there. We can discuss it later.


First, I don't need to know the details. I don't even need to decide whether your version of right or wrong is important. You know mine and you can decide for yourself what I might believe.

People overcome their indoctrination by thinking about things. Listening to others, interacting with others and using that to educate their own decisions. This thread is a perfect example of sharing those thoughts to educate one's self.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Is your question what is "right" or "wrong" from a legal sense?
> 
> Or
> 
> ...



Good point, I will check out your link when time permits. Thank you. I don't really consider legality to be right or wrong, laws change daily, besides, shouldn't morals guide the law?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Seth said:


> Indoctrination. Perfect word, what makes a person, of their own volition, overcome their indoctrination?


Indoctrination is an often misused term.

Hypotheticals are also way overused but you might see some relevant points here.

Your small toddler daughter is grabbed by someone who kidnaps, assaults and murders them.
You discover this monster before he is arrested and you cut his throat.
You are sentenced to prison.
The judge says you were wrong. The kidnapper's family says you were wrong.
You believe you are right. In the deepest recesses of your heart you were right.
20 years and you are released. Are you remorseful? No.
Is this indoctrination? Is it cultural? Biblical? Biased or prejudiced?
Are you a product of an era or upbringing?


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> First, I don't need to know the details. I don't even need to decide whether your version of right or wrong is important. You know mine and you can decide for yourself what I might believe.
> 
> People overcome their indoctrination by thinking about things. Listening to others, interacting with others and using that to educate their own decisions. This thread is a perfect example of sharing those thoughts to educate one's self.


Fair enough, but details may be important in a different way. Someone more closed minded than yourself may take the facts that I've done those things and, not caring about details, decide that I am inherently bad. Not that I care either way, but the possible ripple effect from that is huge. Maybe I need a favor (life and death) and they could help but don't. That affects my family's future. all hypothetical, of course.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> Indoctrination is an often misused term.
> 
> Hypotheticals are also way overused but you might see some relevant points here.
> 
> ...



Is there a better term than indoctrination?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Seth said:


> Good point, I will check out your link when time permits. Thank you. I don't really consider legality to be right or wrong, laws change daily, besides, shouldn't morals guide the law?


I think there is a very wide divide between "legal" and "moral"


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I think there is a very wide divide between "legal" and "moral"


Me too, but should one guide the other? Why?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Seth said:


> Me too, but should one guide the other? Why?


Laws are made and passed by voting. The "morality" of the majority might be wrong, but it still becomes a law.

Once that "immoral" law is on the books it takes a considerable amount of effort to remove it, or to even amend it. 

So much of this goes back to moral relativism.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laws are only guidelines by a society in what they believe is acceptable and how they will punish you. Morals are what you personally will do or not do when faced with a situation.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Morals are a human concept.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Laws are only guidelines by a society in what they believe is acceptable and how they will punish you. Morals are what you personally will do or not do when faced with a situation.


If you were born and lived in ancient Rome or in an Amazonian tribe that has made no contact with the outside world, do you think you’d have the same concept of right and wrong that you do now?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Morals are a human concept.


So are laws


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> If you were born and lived in say Ancient Rome, do you think you’d have the same concept of right and wrong that you do now?


Yes, I do. My mind is the same. I can think for myself.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

You can reduce a lot of this down to "what works". What cultural values allow a group to succeed over time? People may not find that very satisfying but knowing this doesn't mean you cannot truly believe and hold those values holy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I do. My mind is the same. I can think for myself.


Most everyone "thinks" that.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I do. My mind is the same. I can think for myself.


No, it wouldn’t be. You’d have none of the same information, education, experiences, etc on which to base your concept of right and wrong.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I do. My mind is the same. I can think for myself.



Bingo!! I feel the same way, but question myself as to WHY I feel that I am right. Indoctrination? Morals? What makes mine better? Personal gain? Perceived superiority?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> No, it wouldn’t be. You’d have none of the same information, education, experiences, etc on which to base your concept of right and wrong.


What if you were born and raised in a time and place that believed that it was kind to and noble to end lives so they could go onto a better place. There was no science, no outside world communication to counter this view and it was all you knew.
Would you think killing someone was bad?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> No, it wouldn’t be. You’d have none of the same information, education, experiences, etc on which to base your concept of right and wrong.


So you don't think that I could come to the same conclusion as others at that time did? How do you explain that?


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

what makes one person right and another person wrong?

My answer is morality.

But morality can differ depending upon the individual or society.

So the question is a circular question, I don't think we can come to a clear answer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> Bingo!! I feel the same way, but question myself as to WHY I feel that I am right. Indoctrination? Morals? What makes mine better? Personal gain? Perceived superiority?


Better is subjective and not a word I have used about my opinion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Doubt is a pretty common companion to being "right" or "wrong". I think only a psychopath has no doubt.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> So you don't think that I could come to the same conclusion as others at that time did? How do you explain that?


On what do you base your concept of right and wrong?
How do you know something is right or wrong?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I think there is a very wide divide between "legal" and "moral"


I think there is right and wrong in the moral sense. I think there is right and wrong in the sense of being correct or incorrect. The first of these is based on values, culture, context, etc. The second is based on whether something can be objectively verifiable or not.

I think introducing the concept of "legal" muddies the waters, mostly because the law combines elements of both morality and the finding of facts. To wit...

1. Stealing bread when you are starving may or may not be morally wrong in a person's eyes, but it is objectively verifiable that the person took the loaf, and a clear cut matter as to whether that violates the criminal code. 

2. Killing someone because you fear for your life can be viewed as morally defensible (by most people) or still morally wrong (by Quakers, Amish etc.). That killing may be legally "right" or "wrong" depending on the local law. The application of that law in this instance relies on the court making a finding of fact as to whether you truly feared for your life or not. That finding of fact may be correct or incorrect, as we have no way of objectively determining what was actually in your mind. The court makes an inference based on actions, testimony etc. 

So any discussion on right vs wrong needs clarity on whether we are talking about morality or "correctness", otherwise we are at crosspurposes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> On what do you base your concept of right and wrong?
> How do you know something is right or wrong?


Please read my first post in this thread.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> what makes one person right and another person wrong?
> 
> My answer is morality.
> 
> ...



We can't, if we don't try.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

right or wrong doesn't have to be about legality or morality.
two people standing outside getting wet. 
one says , it is raining .
the other one says, no it is not.
can they both be right or wrong ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

See, hypotheticals all revolve around the truth of the time. Your truth is the one that you own.
Slavery wrong? Ok. Your truth doesn't trump the truth of someone who believes it is right, regardless of your reasoning.
In fact, your opinion is no more than that.
Note the term as it is commonly used by posters who disagree.
Opinion isn't fact unless it is proven; truth isn't universal unless it is above man.
Why is that?
Because no man is alike, and neither are their thoughts.
Man is fallible.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Better is subjective and not a word I have used about my opinion.


Good point. Why, in our past arguments, have you defended your opinions against mine?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> Good point. Why, in our past arguments, have you defended your opinions against mine?


Have I defended my opinion or have I told you that my opinion was better?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The Paw said:


> I think there is right and wrong in the moral sense. I think there is right and wrong in the sense of being correct or incorrect. The first of these is based on values, culture, context, etc. The second is based on whether something can be objectively verifiable or not.
> 
> I think introducing the concept of "legal" muddies the waters, mostly because the law combines elements of both morality and the finding of facts. To wit...
> 
> ...


What was you major/minor?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> See, hypotheticals all revolve around the truth of the time. Your truth is the one that you own.
> Slavery wrong? Ok. Your truth doesn't trump the truth of someone who believes it is right, regardless of your reasoning.
> In fact, your opinion is no more than that.
> Note the term as it is commonly used by posters who disagree.
> ...


I don't completely disagree with you, but you take an atomized view of moral right. You may not feel that Person A's moral opposition to slavery "trumps" Person B's belief in that institution, and in isolation, it appears that way. But as societies we do develop a moral consensus on some key issues, and that moral consensus is reflected in law. So you would have to basically agree that in America today, slavery is wrong, and someone who believe in it is "wrong".

At the same time, I concede that the moral consensus cannot be imposed backward in time. The moral consensus in 1776, regarding slavery, was different than today. The most you can say about slavery at that time is that it was legal, and there was no clear consensus on its morality. (If you leap further back in time to ancient Greece, you could probably say there was a moral consensus that slavery was moral).


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

HDRider said:


> What was you major/minor?


Lol. Too long winded? My degree is in social work, but before I landed on that calling I went to law school for a bit. In preparing for the LSAT admissions process, I took some philosophy courses including Introduction to Logic. It is probably the single most useful course from my entire education.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The problem with "moral right", laws and power is that in the past those who used it to subjugate others did that without regard for those that did not agree.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The Paw said:


> Lol. Too long winded? My degree is in social work, but before I landed on that calling I went to law school for a bit. In preparing for the LSAT admissions process, I took some philosophy courses including Introduction to Logic. It is probably the single most useful course from my entire education.


No, no, not long winded, well constructed.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The Paw said:


> I don't completely disagree with you, but you take an atomized view of moral right. You may not feel that Person A's moral opposition to slavery "trumps" Person B's belief in that institution, and in isolation, it appears that way. But as societies we do develop a moral consensus on some key issues, and that moral consensus is reflected in law. So you would have to basically agree that in America today, slavery is wrong, and someone who believe in it is "wrong".
> 
> At the same time, I concede that the moral consensus cannot be imposed backward in time. The moral consensus in 1776, regarding slavery, was different than today. The most you can say about slavery at that time is that it was legal, and there was no clear consensus on its morality. (If you leap further back in time to ancient Greece, you could probably say there was a moral consensus that slavery was moral).


Yes, and the word you used several times was "consensus."
If one derives their knowledge of right and wrong from a consensus, it only applies as it is created.
Consensus in itself is not an absolute.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Yes, and the word you used several times was "consensus."
> If one derives their knowledge of right and wrong from a consensus, it only applies as it is created.
> Consensus in itself is not an absolute.


It is anything BUT an absolute.

Some argue that morality is not an absolute.

Some argue there are NO absolutes.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Have I defended my opinion or have I told you that my opinion was better?



You have defended your opinion, no question about that. My question is why have you defended your opinion rather than adopting mine?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Correct, and if they are thru consensus, the only absolute is the present.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Seth said:


> You have defended your opinion, no question about that. My question is why have you defended your opinion rather than adopting mine?


I have defended my opinion, because I felt it was better than yours, I wonder if other folks feel the same when arguing with me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> You have defended your opinion, no question about that. My question is why have you defended your opinion rather than adopting mine?


I think for myself. I did not adopt all the opinions my parents, my teachers or my friends had.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Yes, and the word you used several times was "consensus."
> If one derives their knowledge of right and wrong from a consensus, it only applies as it is created.
> Consensus in itself is not an absolute.


The only absolute is that there are no absolutes....

It is true that people as individuals can have a sense of morality that is out of step with the consensus. Whether they are "right" or "wrong" depends on whether you view it from a standpoint of a higher moral authority (wrong in God's eyes), the standpoint of the state (a legal consensus), or the standpoint of popular opinion. So the societal consensus is not the absolute determining factor, but it is relevant. 

If I am one of two people in North America who believes it is virtuous to smash kittens with a ball peen hammer, it is not fair to say that I am not wrong because someone else shares this morally repugnant view.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> On what do you base your concept of right and wrong?
> How do you know something is right or wrong?





painterswife said:


> Please read my first post in this thread.


I think there is more to it than what you posted here:



painterswife said:


> I feel that actions that hurt another person for no reason caused by the person injured are self-evident in being wrong. That is basic. For example, murder, rape, slavery, and assault. You know from the moment you did it, it was wrong even if you can find ways in your mind to justify it. You may not understand it as a child but as an adult you can easily figure it out for yourself if you want to. Exceptions would be with those that have a mental deficit or brain damage.
> 
> After that, it comes from whether there is proof or facts of one or the other or from indoctrination by those that came before you.


For example, if you were taught to steal, if you were actually taught that the ability to steal well was the basis on which you judged a person--the better the burglar the better the person, and not just by one or two people, but by your whole community you lived in--everyone you know feels this way, would stealing be wrong? What many of us are saying is that your environment does, to some affect how your sense of morality develops. 

I disagree that if you were raised 1000 years ago you would have the exact set of moralities or versions of right and wrong as you do now. A point that you yourself made at the end of your first post seems to agree:



painterswife said:


> ...After that, it comes from whether there is proof or facts of one or the other or from indoctrination by those that came before you.


In the example above, you would be indoctrinated to steal, would you not? Therefor making stealing morally acceptable at that time and place.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a nature vs. nurture argument, but that's for another post all together! And as much as I enjoy this type of debate it is truly cyclical. We will keep going round and round chasing opinions and ideals, and it may seem pointless to some but for others the fun is in the chase!


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I think for myself. I did not adopt all the opinions my parents, my teachers or my friends had.


I understand, and believe that, but you've not answered the question, why do you defend the opinions you've formed?

Maybe, what I'm asking is what makes your opinion defensible?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> I think there is more to it than what you posted here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will counter with this. I was indoctrinated to believe that believing in God was good. I don't believe in God nor do I believe it is good to believe in God.

PS, I also don't believe that beliving in God is bad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> I understand, and believe that, but you've not answered the question, why do you defend the opinions you've formed?


I feel like it sometimes. Sometimes I don't.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

gleepish said:


> I think there is more to it than what you posted here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For me, the fun is seeing into other people's reasoning process. I like to learn and have my eyes opened to differing views.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I will counter with this. I was indoctrinated to believe that believing in God was good. I don't believe in God nor do I believe it is good to believe in God.
> 
> PS, I also don't believe that beliving in God is bad.


AH but see, the flaw in your logic there is that not everyone you know believes in God.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The Paw said:


> The only absolute is that there are no absolutes....


And with that you have defined the conundrum that treads thru all of the insight and perspective given in this thread.
To deny there is absolute truth is one basis for a viewpoint, but it does not circumvent another person's belief that there is absolute truth; it only identifies the path of an argument.
The origins of absolute truth are to some, subjective, so then are the tenents.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Seth said:


> For me, the fun is seeing into other people's reasoning process. I like to learn and have my eyes opened to differing views.


Can you name one major opinion that you held, but reversed based on dialogue here on HT?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> AH but see, the flaw in your logic there is that not everyone you know believes in God.


The flaw in your logic is believing there can be a society where everyone believes the same about everything and does not question those beliefs.

Gleepish, you know that nothing we post between us is taken personally by me. I hope you do.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Seth said:


> For me, the fun is seeing into other people's reasoning process. I like to learn and have my eyes opened to differing views.


I was raised in a family where from the time you were about 5 you were encouraged to join in on the family discussions. But... you could never, ever, express an opinion without backing it up. Because of this I have developed a love of debate, along with appreciation to anyone who makes me actually think about the whys and hows of something. I've had my opinion changed more than once and I've changed the way I think about some things, and each time that happens I think it's a wonderful thing.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

There's a news story that a guy found over 43K in a ottoman he bought from habitat for humanity store.
Legally it was his, he said he needed a new roof, etc.
But he said morally it wasn't his.
I believe our conscience is our guide, even if it's legal doesn't mean we're right.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Can you name one major opinion that you held, but reversed based on dialogue here on HT?


Here, I was only here for a short time about 15 years ago and I've only been back here for really a few days... in that short time I have not yet had one opinion, major or minor, changed based on dialogue here on HT. But... that doesn't mean that I haven't enjoyed the debate or that it will never happen.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

There is a commonly excepted deffintion of what normal means. By deffintion it is based on the majority. If 90 out of 100 cows chew their food 27 times before swallowing it then that is considered normal. Therefore by this deffinition. If at a mental hospital the majority of the patients there all act one way, then they are to be considered normal. The majority sets what is to be considered normal or right by their standards. People of the jungle put rings around their neck and bones in their nose. Normal and right to them but not to us. We also need to learn from the past as times and standards change. In the wild west days we could marry at 13-14 yrs old. Now not so much. Can not judge the past by todays standards. We can only learn from them...hopefully.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> The flaw in your logic is believing there can be a society where everyone believes the same about everything and does not question those beliefs.
> 
> Gleepish, you know that nothing we post between us is taken personally by me. I hope you do.


No, I'm placing set boundaries on a hypothetical situation. 

Of course I know that! I just enjoy the banter.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> There's a news story that a guy found over 43K in a ottoman he bought from habitat for humanity store.
> Legally it was his, he said he needed a new roof, etc.
> But he said morally it wasn't his.
> I believe our conscience is our guide, even if it's legal doesn't mean we're right.


I saw that on the news too.. made me smile and gave me a little bit of hope for society!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> No, I'm placing set boundaries on a hypothetical situation.
> 
> Of course I know that! I just enjoy the banter.


Okay, then I think your arbitrary boundaries are not logical. 

I do agree when you know nothing else it is difficult to grasp other concepts. I do however think that is the wonderful thing about humans. Curiosity and learning are things most embrace. I do think that you can believe being good at stealing is good but still know the act of stealing is bad.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Can you name one major opinion that you held, but reversed based on dialogue here on HT?



Yes


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Seth said:


> So does right and wrong change with the times?


"Right and wrong" are just matters of opinion in many cases, so it can change depending upon whom you ask.

I find that many people will rail about some things being "wrong", then will turn around and do those same things themselves, thinking it's "right" because *it's what they want* to do.

There are *some* things the overwhelming majority of people will think are distasteful, but they are quite few.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I do. My mind is the same. I can think for myself.


Both our minds are shaped by our education, live experiences, the world around us and those that raised us. 

My grandparents minds were shaped in a similar manner but their education was more limited and their world was a lot smaller than mine, they left the ranch quarterly, listened to the only radio station they could get and read the local newspaper, when they went to town quarterly. Their minds were just as sharp as yours and mine but their opinions were less worldly. 

I we lived in more ancient times, neither you or I would have any education at all and the biggest event in our lives would be a suitable husband. With no education, no encouragement to use our own minds, raised by parents who discouraged free thought and looked forward to that dowry, I doubt very much if time and circumstances allowed for much reflection.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Laws are only guidelines *by a society* in what they believe is acceptable and how they will punish you.


Some laws are pushed on the people by legislators who have no clue.
They are often the opposite of what "society" wants.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> Have I defended my opinion or *have I told you that my opinion was better*?


Yes.
You've quite often told others they were wrong and you were right, based only on your opinion.



painterswife said:


> I do think that you can believe being good at stealing is good but still know the act of stealing is bad.


So it's ok to do something you know is wrong if you think it's good because you're good at it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Both our minds are shaped by our education, live experiences, the world around us and those that raised us.
> 
> My grandparents minds were shaped in a similar manner but their education was more limited and their world was a lot smaller than mine, they left the ranch quarterly, listened to the only radio station they could get and read the local newspaper, when they went to town quarterly. Their minds were just as sharp as yours and mine but their opinions were less worldly.
> 
> I we lived in more ancient times, neither you or I would have any education at all and the biggest event in our lives would be a suitable husband. With no education, no encouragement to use our own minds, raised by parents who discouraged free thought and looked forward to that dowry, I doubt very much if time and circumstances allowed for much reflection.


Yet others of those times came to the same conclusions then that I do now.. Explain that away with your scenario.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yet others of those times came to the same conclusions then that I do now.. Explain that away with your scenario.



I was of the impression that a bit part of discussion was considering other viewpoints and responding rather than simply dismissing. Given that you've indicated you're not interested in any discussion by your fairly condescending remark, there is not much point in continuing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am discussing but your scenario left out or did not cover that possibility. I am curious how you account for that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yet *others of those times came to the same conclusions* *then that I do now*.. Explain that away with your scenario.


Others still disagree now too. 
Talking in circles gets you back where you started.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

For the past few years, each summer I stand at the summit of Little Round Top and ponder your question. 

geo


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Late to the party.
From what I've been reading it appears to me that most answers here are pretty subjective: based on ones beliefs, things taken from society they feel comfortable with, etc. In my mind, right or wrong is objective - free from personal bias. Something measurable as in science or math.

Debates like this will never be resolved, as it is what it is - subjective.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Wolf mom said:


> Late to the party.
> From what I've been reading it appears to me that most answers here are pretty subjective: based on ones beliefs, things taken from society they feel comfortable with, etc. In my mind, right or wrong is objective - free from personal bias. Something measurable as in science or math.
> 
> Debates like this will never be resolved, as it is what it is - subjective.


I like the idea of right or wrong being free from personal bias.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am discussing but your scenario left out or did not cover that possibility. I am curious how you account for that.


There is no discussion when one side simply dismisses all discussion in favour of repeating the same anthem with a bit of tone for good measure.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> There is no discussion when one side simply dismisses all discussion in favour of repeating the same anthem with a bit of tone for good measure.


Your post don't seem to account for the fact that others of the time formed the same opinion as I do. I find that is dismissing my and those people's opinions.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

Seth said:


> This is in reference to the Robert E. Lee thread, but let's please talk in general terms. Seth


Is this a "General" question, or possibly a "Major" question, or would you rather keep that "Private"....either way, that is rather "Admiral"able of you.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Your post don't seem to account for the fact that others of the time formed the same opinion as I do. I find that is dismissing my and those people's opinions.


How do you know that others of whatever time formed the same opinion as you?


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

It seems to me the Birthday thread moved over here. Different thread same story


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> It seems to me the Birthday thread moved over here. Different thread same story


I agree. It started out just about how the individual determines right and wrong but that part got brought over here.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree. It started out just about how the individual determines right and wrong but that part got brought over here.


It seems to me in my very simple opinion..... never mind. Dad taught me if I cant say anything nice to just not say anything at all. 

I am going to go look for threads on Bison and Homesteading. Ya'll have fun.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

"Right and wrong" are opinions. In 1930's Germany many thought it "right" to kill Jews just for being Jews. In the early 20th century, many, in the U.S., thought it right to sterilize "less desirable" folks. There are many examples of things that some think are "right" and others think are wrong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> How do you know that others of whatever time formed the same opinion as you?


She has a feeling they did


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> It seems to me the Birthday thread moved over here. Different thread same story


You will find it in a great many threads


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> It seems to me in my very simple opinion..... never mind. Dad taught me if I cant say anything nice to just not say anything at all.
> 
> I am going to go look for threads on Bison and Homesteading. Ya'll have fun.


Those are wonderful, valuable and interesting subjects, but,,,,

Don't give up now. You are just learning the ropes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> "Right and wrong" are opinions. In 1930's Germany many thought it "right" to kill Jews just for being Jews. In the early 20th century, many, in the U.S., thought it right to sterilize "less desirable" folks. There are many examples of things that some think are "right" and others think are wrong.


Group Think or Mob Mentality is a very scary thing.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> How do you know that others of whatever time formed the same opinion as you?


Is this a serious question? The fact that there were abolitionists at the time is pretty well documented.

https://www.britannica.com/list/8-influential-abolitionist-texts


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The Paw said:


> Is this a serious question? The fact that there were abolitionists at the time is pretty well documented.
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/list/8-influential-abolitionist-texts


You must not have been following the line of quoted posts. 
We were talking about ancient times... Rome, Egypt, Africa...everywhere and every time there was slavery. Slavery in the US was a mere blip in time away from the present and most of our morality was theology based on Christianity and quite similar to our present day American morality.
I’m talking about other times, like when the Vikings existed and had slaves.

what was right and wrong based on then? And how does that poster know that there were people like her, who apparently just have an innate set of morals unaffected by the time and place they exist in.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> And in Ancient Rome, Egypt, Africa...everywhere and every time there was slavery? Slavery in the US was a mere blip in time away from the present and most of our morality was theology based on Christianity and quite similar to our present day American morality.
> I’m talking about other times, like when the Vikings existed and had slaves.
> 
> what was right and wrong based on then? And how does that poster know that there were people like her, who apparently just have an innate set of morals unaffected by the time and place they exist in.


Lisa, in all seriousness, I am sure many people from all times past felt slavery was wrong, but they had no power to overcome the prevailing opinion of their times.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vikings went to other countries to get most of their slaves. They could only make slaves of their own countrymen if the committed certain crimes. That speaks to me that they knew making someone a slave for no action of their own was not right.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Vikings went to other countries to get most of their slaves. They could only make slaves of their own countrymen if the committed certain crimes. That speaks to me that they knew making someone a slave for no action of their own was not right.


See this is where you jump tracks. Right, and legal are sometimes the same thing and sometimes they are not, like using abortion as birth control is immoral, but legal. 

You want to use morality and legal interchangeably. You can't do that and be correct.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> See this is where you jump tracks. Right, and legal are sometimes the same thing and sometimes they are not, like using abortion as birth control is immoral, but legal.
> 
> You want to use morality and legal interchangeably. You can't do that and be correct.


We will have to agree that we disagree.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Lisa, in all seriousness, I am sure many people from all times past felt slavery was wrong, but they had no power to overcome the prevailing opinion of their times.


Maybe.
I’m more curious as to why PW is certain that while she shares her sense of right and wrong with the huge majority of our present day society, that she would be in the unknown minority of societies of other times and places.
Me? I have no earthly idea what i would believe in another time and place. As wr said, my life would be indescribably different and as a woman, I wouldn’t have a voice.
I think it’s delusional to think you’d have the same sense of right and wrong if you were born to say...a society of Paleolithic folks, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

We have not discussed paleolithic folks. We have discussed societies that have social and economic stratification. Thanks for the delusional dig. I enjoyed the attempt.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> We have not discussed paleolithic folks. We have discussed societies that have social and economic stratification. Thanks for the delusional dig. I enjoyed the attempt.


paleolithic man as in all people most certainly had social and economic stratification.But Paleolithic was just one example. Feel free to insert any ancient civilization.
It wasn’t a dig. I said, “it”, meaning the idea. Not a person. If I’d said “she” than you might have a point.
Stop trying to make it personal.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Vikings went to other countries to get most of their slaves. They could only make slaves of their own countrymen if the committed certain crimes. That speaks to me that they knew making someone a slave for no action of their own was not right.


But taking slaves from other countries was right? I'm a bit confused at what you are trying to say. Maybe they just thought they were superior to others and if they could best you at battle, you were a lesser human being. 



Lisa in WA said:


> I think it’s delusional to think you’d have the same sense of right and wrong if you were born to say...a society of Paleolithic folks, etc.


I'm not sure delusional is the word I'd use, but I've pointed this out several times and several times she's insisted that I'm wrong. Now, I am willing to say that maybe she's right. Maybe if we were all thrown back to a land and time far far away we'd grow up to think exactly like we do now. But I think the chance of that actually happening is Slim to none (and Slim has left the building.)


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

CKelly78z said:


> Is this a "General" question, or possibly a "Major" question, or would you rather keep that "Private"....either way, that is rather "Admiral"able of you.


Ya caught the pun! I almost said no pun intended (it wasn't) but figured I'd let it play out.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

HDRider said:


> She has -divine- abilities,


I think the word should be delusional.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> You must not have been following the line of quoted posts.
> We were talking about ancient times... Rome, Egypt, Africa...everywhere and every time there was slavery. Slavery in the US was a mere blip in time away from the present and most of our morality was theology based on Christianity and quite similar to our present day American morality.
> I’m talking about other times, like when the Vikings existed and had slaves.
> 
> what was right and wrong based on then? And how does that poster know that there were people like her, who apparently just have an innate set of morals unaffected by the time and place they exist in.


Lot packed in there, let's break it down.

1. None of us knows what view of morality we would have held, had we been born in another time. We can think we would be the same, but I agree that's speculative. 

2. That is different from pointing out that there were people who shared a similar moral stance who lived during the period. And of course, the size of that "moral minority" would be different across history. Abolitionists were a larger proportion of the body politic in the 1700-1865 than they were in the time of Vikings.

3. I looked at the Wikipedia on slavery in ancient Greece. It was incredibly layered and nuanced, with varying different degrees of freedom and different philosophical takes on the morality. But at the end of the day, while not all Greeks viewed slavery in the same way, they basically state that ancient Greeks simply could not conceptualize a society without slavery in some form. So I think its fair to conclude that there was a pretty strong pro-slavery consensus in that society. 

4. At the same time, the Abolitionist writings I linked to included many texts written by former slaves. Based on that, I don't find it wildly speculative to conclude that your average Grecian slave went to bed thinking "This sucks. This can't be right...".

So, to bring it full circle, we always project the morality of our time to a certain extent, and if we acknowledge that, we can still have useful conversation. We also need to keep in mind that if we simply dismiss past behaviours or practices by glibly proclaiming them simply to be the prevailing morality of the time and it's all relative, that really isn't conducive to fulsome discussion. That's my take anyway...


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Every way of a man _is_ right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

The Paw said:


> Lot packed in there, let's break it down.
> 
> 1. None of us knows what view of morality we would have held, had we been born in another time. We can think we would be the same, but I agree that's speculative.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Every way of a man _is_ right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.


How does God view the pure of heart, but the weakness of action?

Or can one be pure of heart, but still weak in action?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gleepish said:


> Well said.


He has a gift


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> How does God view the pure of heart, but the weakness of action?
> 
> Or can one be pure of heart, but still weak in action?


Purity of heart/thought is a goal that I am uncertain anyone can reach here on this earth. Inaction does not help you get any closer to it, however.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> How does God view the pure of heart, but the weakness of action?
> 
> Or can one be pure of heart, but still weak in action?


That can pretty much describe some of the most powerful people in the Bible that God used.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The Paw said:


> Lot packed in there, let's break it down.
> 
> 1. None of us knows what view of morality we would have held, had we been born in another time. We can think we would be the same, but I agree that's speculative.
> 
> ...


I agree and I will take it a step further. I don't discount the many layers of want or need that would lead many people at that time to believe in justifications that would allow them to think slavery was right. I am just saying that I believe there were always people that knew it was not right.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The Paw said:


> Lot packed in there, let's break it down.
> 
> 1. None of us knows what view of morality we would have held, had we been born in another time. We can think we would be the same, but I agree that's speculative.
> *That was my main point. *
> ...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I agree and I will take it a step further. I don't discount the many layers of want or need that would lead many people at that time to believe in justifications that would allow them to think slavery was right. I am just saying that I believe there were always people that knew it was not right.


So you do agree you have no idea what your own moral standard of right and wrong would be if you lived in another time and place.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> So you do agree you have no idea what your own moral standard of right and wrong would be if you lived in another time and place.


I do not.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I do not.


Then you missed The Paws first point.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Then you missed The Paws first point.


Or I disagree. God is speculation but many say that they know he exists.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree and I will take it a step further. I don't discount the many layers of want or need that would lead many people at that time to believe in justifications that would allow them to think slavery was right. I am just saying that I believe there were always people that knew it was not right.


Why are you so hung up on the slavery thing? Where you a slave? Was anyone in your family a slave? Maybe your anncesters were slave owners? What is the deal?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Or I disagree. God is speculation but many say that they know he exists.


God is faith. Big difference


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Or I disagree. God is speculation but many say that they know he exists.


you literally said you agreed with him.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Why are you so hung up on the slavery thing? Where you a slave? Was anyone in your family a slave? Maybe your anncesters were slave owners? What is the deal?


she is Canadian. Were their slaves in Canada?

ETA: yep, by colonials and First Nations people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Why are you so hung up on the slavery thing? Where you a slave? Was anyone in your family a slave? Maybe your anncesters were slave owners? What is the deal?


Others brought it into this thread, so I used it in my responses.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> you literally said you agreed with him.


I did not say I agreed with everything. Literally.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

But you literally said you agreed with his post. 



painterswife said:


> I did not say I agreed with everything. Literally.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Others brought it into this thread, so I used it in my responses.


I didnt see anyone else bring it in here. YOU brought it in to state your opinion as to what is right or wrong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> I didnt see anyone else bring it in here. YOU brought it in to state your opinion as to what is right or wrong.


You answered your own question


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> I didnt see anyone else bring it in here. YOU brought it in to state your opinion as to what is right or wrong.


It was in a list of things. Further on it was brought into the discussion by others by itself and I responded. If no one else had mentioned it I would not have again. You seem to have a fixation on me talking about slavery when you know that this thread came about from the other thread where it was a big topic.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

54metalman said:


> I didnt see anyone else bring it in here. YOU brought it in to state your opinion as to what is right or wrong.


And she also brought it into the General Lee thread. Where she attempted to correct you and then me. (Posts 31 and 46)


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

oo, that might leave a mark...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am just saying that I believe there were *always people that knew it was not right*.


Could the same be said about lying just to get what one wants?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

54metalman said:


> I didnt see anyone else bring it in here. YOU brought it in to state your opinion as to what is right or wrong.



GTX63 used slavery as an example of a moral question in post #54 (or thereabouts) and I replied to it in post #56 expanding on the example. That is where the thread evolved to a more focused discussion on slavery, as threads are wont to do. I don't know why you seem so put out by one particular poster's use of this as an illustrative theme. Perhaps it is carryover from another thread.

I don't post in GC often, but I read every day. One of the reasons I don't post very often is so many of these threads degenerate into the same half dozen people determined to poke each other in the eye with a stick. Any discussion seems secondary to the over-riding objective of getting a shot in. It's blatant, it's obvious, and it's highly repetitive. It's also reciprocal. It is beyond me why adults can't have enough self restraint to just let some other internet rando be "wrong", but I think there are a lot of posters who might have something interesting to say who stay on the sidelines because of these shenanigans. Food for thought....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Be bold


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gleepish said:


> But taking slaves from other countries was right? I'm a bit confused at what you are trying to say. Maybe they just thought they were superior to others and if they could best you at battle, you were a lesser human being.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure delusional is the word I'd use, but I've pointed this out several times and several times she's insisted that I'm wrong. Now, I am willing to say that maybe she's right. Maybe if we were all thrown back to a land and time far far away we'd grow up to think exactly like we do now. But I think the chance of that actually happening is Slim to none (and Slim has left the building.)


It would be different to be dropped back into another time than to have been born within that time. In one case, you'd bring current values and morality with you but if you were born within that time you'd have the values of the society you lived among.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> Pretty sure Metalman was responding to Painterswife, not you. It’s not all about you.
> But hey...if you can shoehorn yourself in well enough to take a holier-than-thou shot at others here ....have at it, right?
> Seems pretty hypocritical to me though.


Not that bold


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

wr said:


> It would be different to be dropped back into another time than to have been born within that time. In one case, you'd bring current values and morality with you but if you were born within that time you'd have the values of the society you lived among.


That's an important distinction. And the notion of morality being shaped isn't limited to eras. I remember backpacking in Europe around 1980 and my friends and I met a couple of girls from South Africa. One of my friends thought it was important to point out how reprehensible apartheid was. Despite the gracelessness of my friends proclamation, one of the girls tried to take the time to explain how it is real easy to take that position from a distance, but it is a much more difficult thing to confront when you have grown up with that system, values and supporting legal structure all around you. She wasn't excusing apartheid, just pointing out that changing it wasn't as simple as snapping one's fingers.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Pretty sure Metalman was responding to Painterswife, not you. It’s not all about you.
> But hey...if you can shoehorn yourself in well enough to take a holier-than-thou shot at others here ....have at it, right?
> Seems pretty hypocritical to me though.


With all due respect, Metalman was making a misstatement of fact when he put the slavery theme onto someone else. And the thread is a public discourse. If he wanted or intended to have an exclusive conversation, I would imagine he would use the private message function.

You and I had an informative exchange on the topic with partially aligned and partially opposing points. It was constructive and interesting in tone and content, probably because it wasn't laden with all the baggage of the dynamics that I referred to. That was how I saw it anyway. But everyone will engage on the terms that work for them I suppose.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I grew up in a society that valued God above all else. Yet I don't believe. I grew up in a society where blacks were called names and homosexuality was derided but I never took that opinion. If I could buck those values and moralities then I could also be among those in other times and places that also did not conform to the morality or values of the majority.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The Paw said:


> With all due respect, Metalman was making a misstatement of fact when he put the slavery theme onto someone else. And the thread is a public discourse. If he wanted or intended to have an exclusive conversation, I would imagine he would use the private message function.
> 
> You and I had an informative exchange on the topic with partially aligned and partially opposing points. It was constructive and interesting in tone and content, probably because it wasn't laden with all the baggage of the dynamics that I referred to. That was how I saw it anyway. But everyone will engage on the terms that work for them I suppose.


You were right in that much of this thread has been continued from a previous thread, of which I posted and gave examples. And you did have good points in my opinion, but when you make pronouncements like you did previously, one wonders what your point is in posting or even reading here, though it most certainly well within your rights to do so.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

wr said:


> It would be different to be dropped back into another time than to have been born within that time. In one case, you'd bring current values and morality with you but if you were born within that time you'd have the values of the society you lived among.


The basis from the original point I was referring to would have you born in to that 'time', sorry I was a little vague in this one.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I grew up in a society that valued God above all else. Yet I don't believe. I grew up in a society where blacks were called names and homosexuality was derided but I never took that opinion. If I could buck those values and moralities then I could also be among those in other times and places that also did not conform to the morality or values of the majority.


I feel the same way about some of my upbringing. But, there were also lots of countervailing patterns of thought available to me. I mean, my Dad might come home from work and say something racist, but I was also reading books about the Underground Railroad, MLK, etc. etc. I made up my mind for myself (same as you), but if I was an illiterate vassal in 14th century Denmark who never traveled more than 50 miles from his home community, I am not as certain I would have arrived at the same conclusions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The Paw said:


> I feel the same way about some of my upbringing. But, there were also lots of countervailing patterns of thought available to me. I mean, my Dad might come home from work and say something racist, but I was also reading books about the Underground Railroad, MLK, etc. etc. I made up my mind for myself (same as you), but if I was an illiterate vassal in 14th century Denmark who never traveled more than 50 miles from his home community, I am not as certain I would have arrived at the same conclusions.


I can't believe that I would not be able to tell for myself that hurting another human for something like slavery for no good reason could be something my mind would be okay with. I just can't. I would always know down deep it is wrong.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I grew up in a society that valued God above all else. Yet I don't believe. I grew up in a society where blacks were called names and homosexuality was derided but I never took that opinion. If I could buck those values and moralities then I could also be among those in other times and places that also did not conform to the morality or values of the majority.


Side question, what time period/society/region do you feel has/had the best morals and values? If you could choose a past society to model ours on, which would you choose, or do you feel that there's a better one on earth today? 

I'm sure I didn't word that in the best possible way. Sorry


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> You were right in that much of this thread has been continued from a previous thread, of which I posted and gave examples. And you did have good points in my opinion, but when you make pronouncements like you did previously, one wonders what your point is in posting or even reading here, though it most certainly well within your rights to do so.


Well, I think my point was that there is something to be said for civil discourse based on ideas rather than argument for its own sake. And to maybe rep that perspective for the mostly silent posters on the sideline. And in my most optimistic moment, maybe to hope that people would reflect on that. But, be that as it may, I'll try not to be so ham-handed about it in the future and perhaps just try to be the change that I want....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I can't believe that I would not be able to tell for myself that hurting another human for something like slavery for no good reason could be something my mind would be okay with. I just can't. I would always know down deep it is wrong.


What if it came down to her or you, live or die? Multiply that times 10 or 20, maybe 30 times over your life and repeating for 10 generations back. Life has some lessons we cannot even fathom today.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seth said:


> Side question, what time period/society/region do you feel has/had the best morals and values? If you could choose a past society to model ours on, which would you choose, or do you feel that there's a better one on earth today?
> 
> I'm sure I didn't word that in the best possible way. Sorry


I don't think I can. I think there is good and bad in all. I also don't really judge a society that is lead by those in control as most are. Those in control set the agenda and make it hard for those not in control to sway the rest of society. Circumstances at the time allow them to justify the bad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> What if it came down to her or you, live or die? Multiply that times 10 or 20, maybe 30 times over your life and repeating for 10 generations back. Life has some lessons we cannot even fathom today.


Like I said before. Stealing is bad but if you are starving then there is justification. Fighting for your life can be justification.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Like I said before. Stealing is bad but if you are starving then there is justification. Fighting for your life can be justification.


Killing for any reason, makes it easier to kill, for any reason.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Killing for any reason, makes it easier to kill, for any reason.


I do not agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Like I said before. Stealing is bad but if you are starving then *there is justification*. Fighting for your life *can be justification*.


What about lying just to get what you want?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I do not agree.


Might a young kid be a little squeamish the first time he wrings a chicken's neck? He has to eat. How much does it bother him in 20's and many a chicken has been consumed?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Might a young kid be a little squeamish the first time he wrings a chicken's neck? He has to eat. How much does it bother him in 20's and many a chicken has been consumed?


Being easy to do something wrong does not equate with not knowing it is wrong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Being easy to do something wrong does not equate with not knowing it is wrong.


So you do wrong, but you know it is wrong, but do it anyway?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> So you do wrong, but you know it is wrong, but do it anyway?


I have and I expect most people have as well.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have and I expect most people have as well.


So you might have went along in slavery even though you knew in your heart it was wrong? You may have even had a couple of slaves if circumstances enabled it? Or maybe you would have turned them loose, even if you knew they would die without your protection?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> So you might have went along in slavery even though you knew in your heart it was wrong? You may have even had a couple of slaves if circumstances enabled it? Or maybe you would have turned them loose, even if you knew they would die without your protection?


I might have. I still would have known it was wrong. Exactly has I have been saying all along.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I might have. I still would have known it was wrong. Exactly has I have been saying all along.


Or, maybe you would think it was OK, being the 14th generation slave owner.

I don't think you are honest in your self appraisal. You give yourself a lot of credit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I have and I expect most people have as well.


So you're saying it's *acceptable* to do things you know are wrong because most people have done it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Or, maybe you would think it was OK, being the 14th generation slave owner.
> 
> I don't think you are honest in your self appraisal. You give yourself a lot of credit.


Yet you don't know me. You don't know the times that I have stood up to the wrong towards others when I would personally pay the price. When I have paid a price. I have already walked that line and stood on the side of right.


----------

