Should we consider right and wrong as "parts of an equation, a dialectic" rather than ethical questions as Hegel asserted?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • Yea, sort of.

    The thing about morals and ethics is that it is not 100% certain in what is right and wrong. However an equation, which is composed of definite variables and must equal 1 or many outcomes seems relatable to real life decisions. As these decisions determine our choices we make it affects other people. Whether it affects them in feelings, influences, behavioral, subconciously. To me what is good is where promote happiness and a bit of progress. So I can say right=happiness in the whole picture. Wrong is what causes death and destruction mentally and physically. I think ethical and moral emcompasses the whole picture of right and wrong. But in equation perhaps it can be put, most like in probability and pontentiality.
    Maybe morals exist in the quantum level. Nothing is certain and yes and no can exist at the same time.

  • Right and wrong are opinions people form about the way things should be, period

    And as time goes on and as things change people postulate new subjective opinions and some of these opinions become the most accepted and most implemented ones. Right and wrong as practiced in a society is the product of conflicts going on since the beginning of history. It's not something we can or should seek to set in stone.

    With the opinion in yes who decides what "happiness" is? And why couldn't we decide upon different ends if we wanted to?

    While objective right and wrong can not exist, but can only be something a society fools itself into believing it is easy to recognize that asserting some dominant doctrine of right and wrong as objective rather than as just "a good idea for people to adopt given the present circumstances" risks putting the creators of the doctrine in a superior position to others in society.

    Currently people who study how the mind or how the brain works use words like "deficit" or "disorder" to make their opinions of the way people ought to think and behave sound objective. But science only studies and can only know about the "IS" NOT the "OUGHT". Society runs the risk of blindly following their prescriptions for what they say is the way things ought to work.

    But objectively there is no ought when it comes to the mind or the brain there is just X tends to lead to Y. Only human beings can imagine oughts, and it is our right to but we should not pretend that our oughts are scientific for in doing so we delude ourselves.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
ladiesman says2014-05-12T16:19:02.827
Maybe it goes both ways.