A philosophy of ethics--it's good stuff to study; I'm currently taking a philosophy course at my high school and I've always pondered what defines "right" and "wrong." I specifically asked my teacher whether situations alter the basic foundation for right and wrong and he replied, "no." I took an imaginary scenario where a kid is raised by theives--to him stealing would be natural, or at least I thought it would before I really thought it through. It seems that wherever you go in the world, there is a basic standard of right and wrong. There isn't any place in the world where murder is considered right, and there isn't any place in the world where rape is considered alright either. I don't think that there is an exact way you could ever define right. You can define wrong. It's like defining light and dark. But how do you define right without having to define everything else? If you said it is doing the best for another--well how do you really know it's positively the best for that particular person; If you're talking about health, I would assume the doctor knows what's best. If you're talking about mental health I would assumed the psychologist would know whats best--but how does the average joe know whats best?

Right and Wrong are learned things.

Our entire society has norms that we believe in. I am sure many people in our society believe that killing is wrong. I agree with that. But let us look at a fairly unique society. A society that committed murder, and saw it as good.

The Norse. Their religion consisted of warrior gods. To earn their version of a Heaven, called Valhalla, they had to prove themselves in battle. To prove yourself in battle, was to say you were worthy to be one of the Einherjar (human souls taken to Valhalla to train). The norse saw nothing wrong with killing. Why? Because they were taught from a young age, that to get to ultimate peace (will explain in a second), they had to kill. Dead norse who went to Valhalla to train, trained for one reason: So that when Ragnarok comes, they will be in the army of the gods. Every norse warrior wanted that. But the norse also knew that the gods would die at Ragnarok. So would all the norse warriors. But they did not fear death. Because at the end of Ragnarok, leader of the fire giants, the bad guys, named Surt, lights the world tree on fire, and the entire world submerges into the sea. It cleans all life, and resurfaces, and the lesser gods, and humans can live in peace. They most definately saw nothing wrong with killing.

Now our society is heavily influenced by Christianity. We see many things wrong with killing. It is seen as one of the most supreme evils.

I am not saying that killing is okay, everyone. All I am saying is that good and evil are defined by the civilization you live in. I, myself, am glad I live in a society in which death does not consume us as much as the norse, but I must say: we are getting closer and closer to it.

This is a question that is constantly used as an example of an unassailable philosophical debate. Sad to say, it's easily assailed. "Right" is any activity that does not hurt others unneccesarily. All other ideas of "wrong" and "sin" are examples of invented nonsense. Yes, yes, I know... who bells the cat? How do you define unnecessarily? Simple... if it isn't essential to your personal survival or the survival of those whom you hold a personal (be it perceived or not) responsibility to protect, it isn't neccessary. This isn't to say that gray areas between right and wrong don't exist... however, the presence of those gray areas do not in any way cloud the identification of "right" and "wrong" as absolutes.

What is "right" or "wrong", is defined by society. And it is up to the individual to decide if society has the authority to define these concepts or if they are merely an illusion.

The question of what is right and what is wrong, does nothing more than show the deep rooted god complex that is human nature. There is an idea that somehow actions that manifest into our reality somehow matter. When in truth, why should one spend his time worrying or concerning himself with the egotistical ideas of right and wrong? Reality should not be spent determining the ideas of right and wrong, because they are merely imposed judgments passed down upon people for the idea of control.

The relativism or subjectivism that lots of folks seem to be endorsing may be tough to defend, at least when put up against our intuitions. When you make a statement such as "torturing babies for fun is wrong" you aren't saying "torturing babies for fun is wrong for me" or "in our society, torturing babies for fun is wrong." There is a certain feeling of the objectivity of the wrongness of torturing babies for fun. If a culture has learned that it's ok to do so, then we wouldn't want to say that "well, in their culture, i guess it's ok." We would want to say that their culture has it wrong. Even if every person in the world suddenly stopped having any ethical beliefs, and thus there was no one to judge the torturing of babies for fun as wrong, it is tough to say that in that case, it becomes ok. There seems to be something about the action itself, independent of the person judging it, that makes it wrong.

Right and wrong are merely norms that we pick up as a young child. There is no defintion of what is right or wrong when you look them up their definition is nearly a page long which goes to show that right and wrong are not things that you can do or be but things you know to be looked at in a positive way from society.

right and wrong are the features given by the nature.we are humans because of nature.Nature made us like this because of whatever climatic or environment conditions.some human has big eyes some has small.every child adopt its basic features of body from its family.so right and wrong are norms which are automatically comes in child. then society where we are living makes him decide what is right and wrong. RIGHT IS TRUTH AND WRONG IS LIE.

after thinking about it i have come up with this.
Lets get back to a more basic form of mamal, for example lets use animals in South Africa. If we were to observe them from an early age using human philosphy to describe what we saw in relation to right & wrong this is what i believe we may find. A young bull nearing a drinking hole will be quickly shunted by his mother to warn him of the dangers or crocs e.c.t thus giving the bull & indication of “that action is wrong”. Or when a Lioness is training her cubs to hunt she will indicate through various actions the wrong way & the right way & of course we know the cub will remember this because all living creatures on this planet will do what ever is nesacary to survive in there enviroment. If we were to pass on these simlaraties onto human childen but obviously in way more advance way as we have teachers & laws & all sorts of information that we have to process in order for us to decide what is nesacary for our survival.
this also takes us to nature versus nerture i persoanly believe it is a mixture of both that defines us. nature or our dna decides on how we interpret the information we are given when we are growing up this explaining why we are all so different in how we act & in what we believe.
right & wrong are detrmined by what is nesacary in order to survive in the enviroment we are living in.
As for the grey areas of hurting & genrosity good & evil. It is simple evolution as we become more intelegent our interpretation or right & wrong expands because quite simply as the life we live becomes more complicated the basic fundamentals in which all living creatures follow become more complicated as well. Just like tecnology it continualy becomes more complicated. People seem to get so caught up in tryimg to figure out what life is that they forget that they are apart of life & the answers are there but we just complicate them with our thoughts that have been crammed through our heads as we have grown up in this very fast changing world. IN ORDER TO LEARN ABOUT THE FUTURE WE MUST STUDY THE PAST. THE FUTURE IS DETERMINED BY THE PAST NOT THE PRESENT, THE PRESENT IS ONLY THE TIME IN WHICH THE ACTION (WHICH IS A REACTION TO AN ACTION OF THE PAST) TAKES PLACE….....i hope u follow what i am saying…..........Joel

I was so surprized and excited when I read the different views about right and wrong and the little boy’s explanation impressed me a lot.

I definitely agree with the idea that if an action made by someone make another feel unhappy it is wrong but the vise versa becomes right depending on situations and based on the environmental ethics. I beleive this can work anywhere in the world, be it religious or not.

However, i always get confused that from experience In business life I find things much more complicated and confusing than I thought.

Have you ever heard someone saying whatever you were saying …was right but you should not have said it to him or her, you should have let it go….

After some time the same thing you said will become right while it was wrong some days ago….eg. Firing someone for stealing( not a favorable action) was at one time a right decision but later letting another stay for doing something worse may still be right on certain conditions.

So, I beleive in being right for actions which do not make others feel unhappy

and wrong for my actions which make others feel unhappy if and only if what they did or said was made on bias or misunderstnading each other.

Born and raised from a Christian Family, I can not tolerate people who steal, lie,.... and do not feel that my actions against them would make me wrong even if they did it for survival.

Sophia.

Right and wrong is determined by society. We are taught from the beginning what is acceptable and what is not. It is our parents job to teach us the difference between right and wrong, but that is first taught to them by society. There is a basic understanding about certain things and then other things are in kind of a grey area. It is not purely black and white, there is a lot of overlap that makes things less cut and dry.

Right and wrong can be influenced by two factors… society and individual. What a society thinks is right or wrong could always differ with your individual opinion or another society’s opinion. That is a two way street though as you may think that say, stealing because you have no money and can’t get a job is the “right” thing to do. There is where individual and societal views go astray. Doing the right thing is not always jsut to satisfy a person or society, etc… but it is what will be the best choice that fits the situation. Finding right and wrong is not always that easy.

What makes things right or wrong depends all on the person. Everybody has a different perception on things. People of all kinds are going to think differently on certain subjects. Some things that are right; mabey totally wrong to other people. Nothing is certain in the world today, and whats right and wrong is a prime example.

What one person thinks is right another person may think the exact opposite. What is right for one person may be completely wrong for another. This one likes that one like that. No one can agree on everything unless one looks at it as a society. Does not mean they are right about it just means that most of the people think or believe they are right or they are not willing to go against the majority.
Telling someone it is easy to know right from wrong, but is it easy? Life is just what people make of it. Some people are in the right place and the right time with the right people and that can go both ways I believe. I believe a person knows what is right or wrong for them. I know killing a person, drinking and driving, cheating whether in school or on your significant other is all wrong for me and is not the path that I would pursue but others may think it is right.
For role models and me I believe it is what your parents, peers, taught you up what a person think what is right or wrong. Anyone could tell you, but one will have to make the decision for your own self. No one else can make that decision for you.

For something to ever be right or wrong then there has to be a universal set of morals. If there is no such set of morals, then who are we to ever determine if something is right or wrong? So to me the question isn’t whether or not something is right or wrong, but rather it becomes more or less “why” something is right or wrong? This why factor is more or less the absolute determinate that all items then trickle down from, and further more it is where we must always begin if we are truly wanting to figure out what is right or wrong.

Just because there is a universal moral law out there doesn’t exclude for there to be direct and obvious reasons for why the universal laws are made. I in no way think that you can claim the outcome as a source of making something right or wrong because then you would be claiming that something is only right or wrong after the fact and that in no way could you have known what was right or wrong before the act had been committed because no one on the face of the earth can accurately predict the future to the point of knowing the exact outcome of their own actions. Rather I think the true indicator of whether or not something is right or wrong should be noted from the odds of something being truly beneficial and good. So here is the argument that I think would go with this. X stands for the action in question.

1. X is morally right if and only if for the majority of the time X will bring about something that is truly beneficial and good in both the physical sense and the psychological sense.

An example I would use here would be unprotected sexual promiscuity (U.S.P.). By my own statement this would be a wrong decision because the odds of the U.S.P. being “truly beneficial and good” are very slim because the odds say that if that is taken up as a way of life then that person has a high chance that they will get an STD. Now, personally I don’t think that an STD could ever be said to be “truly beneficial and good.”

Another item that I think that most arguments of morality lack is the fact that they only view what is on the surface. Very rarely do the arguments take into account the guilt or persecution that someone would feel after performing any action. I mean what about the woman that has an abortion performed? Yes, it lifts the burden of having to support a child, but psychologically these women are troubled mentally and feel great regret about what they did.

So in the end what makes up what is right or wrong becomes factoring the “why” in to what is truly making that something right or wrong. Yes, I do believe that there is a set of universal morals that dictates natural law. But, with us being a non-omniscient race of animals we shall never truly know the full extent of what these universal morals entails. So, I think you have to make it a numbers game, because I believe that the universal morals are set about so that we do not come into direct conflict with the natural law that dictates how this universe is to be run. When the numbers are looked at, and it is evident as to what you have the higher percentage of the time performing the “truly beneficial and good” act then and only then can we as humans claim something to be morally right or wrong.

Our opinion on what is right and wrong are heavily based on our own belief system. I do not mean belief system in a solely religious aspect. An individual can know the difference between right and wrong as an athiest as long as they have a set of values to abide by. I would agree with a few previous bloggers that society has a heavy influence on our view of good/bad and right/wrong. Societal norms can have a bandwagoneffect on members ofa group. 9 out of 10 people polled would probably say that murder is wrong and charity is right. Every individual is charge of molding their own version of right and wrong out of examples that they have witnessed, role models behaviors, and instilled values. Since I am a sociology student, I will also mention that there is a Rational Choice Theory. This is where the individual may not commit a right act and instead commit a wrong one after careful consideration. To them the wrong act may be more beneficial at that moment in time. All in all I think that deciding what is right and wrong is shaped by many outside factors in one’s life.

I thought I knew what right and wrong was, but once reading the philosophical view of Crede, I picked out many flaws and had to wonder, “Is there even a wrong way, or are many actions right depending on the person and the situation?” Many may think stealing is wrong, although it can be, but maybe lets say for an example a guy stole food and clothing from a Walmart during the winter for his family since he is poor and felt that he had no other way. Some people might think it was wrong for the guy to steal and others might think it was right, considering the situation. Killing is considered wrong also, but countries go to war and many innocent people are killed, but in return sometimes peace and freedom is obtianed for future generations. Some religons consider sacrifice of a human being right also. Which makes me like and accept C3. It states C3- An action is right if it makes the person recieving the action feel better than any of the other options, and it is wrong if it does not make the person recieving the action feel better than any of the other options.
The guy stealing food and clothes from Walmart might be doing a right action since he’s happy he is getting food and clothes for his family. If he was stealing a big screen tv, might might feel happy at first, but then maybe feel bad later if he got caught. An action is wrong with lets say bulling. Since the person recieving it isn’t happy. An action is right if the person recieving is happy, its wrong if the person recieving isn’t happy. Just depends on the person, culture, and the situation.

After reading this article, I feel that this “right or wrong” theory is a good thing to live life by. The right thing might not always feel good to one personally, but it may be good for another person. As human beings, we cannot always do the right thing for everyone, but we can do the right things for ourselves and try to do the right thing for others. Sometimes, people can feel that the wrong thing is the right thing to do. That is a flaw within this theory, but what might be right to one person might be wrong to another person.

Above it states certain acts as “right acts” and “wrong acts” and in my opinion it goes much further then right from wrong. Yes i agree that fighting is usually wrong and helpingn your brother clean up his room is usually a right thing to do, but there are times that right actions can be wrong and wrong actions cna be right. For example: Fighting is wrong, but what if this kid was 16 fighting 13yr olds and your also 16. Would it be right to fight him and try to teach him a lesson? or let him continue to pick on these younger kids? “Right” actions can become wrong as well. So lets say you have to clean up your brothers room wiht him (thats a right thing) but what if in doing so you miss a big day of your girlfriends because she is graduating from highschool? would it still be right to clean the room and miss the graduation? I basically think that Mill’s theory can come into play here in chosing right from wrong. but also it goes by your prioritys and certain situations when coming down to chosing your final answer whether something is “right” or “wrong.”

Unfortunately, everybody is entitled to their opinion of what is right and what is wrong but there are laws that say otherwise. I will use proposition 8 for example. Proposition 8 is the banning of a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman aka – gay marriage. To be quite blunt, I think this is absolutely ridiculous and STUPID. Okay, so let’s bring religion into it. Why is everything we do based on religion? Why are our values made because of RELIGION? Why is it WRONG to not be religious? It’s the majority bashing the minority in the case of gay marriage and the case of religion. I do not feel that gay marriage is wrong but others do because of either their religious beliefs or because of their own personal beliefs that do not concern religion, which seems to be rare these days. So now because people have such an issue with this and the majority of people feel that it is wrong, gays are no longer allowed to marry in all but one state. Who are they hurting? Nobody. In other cases such as murder and child molestation, it’s been proven by scientific fact and studies that many child molesters and murderers have mental illnesses. Everybody knows these things are wrong simply because it’s just something you KNOW. You don’t need a Bible, a priest, or a group of law makers to tell you this. You KNOW they’re wrong. The people who do these things, though, aren’t able to distinguish this within their minds. One could say, though, “Well then gays have a mental illness if they feel marrying gay is right.” I cannot disagree with this more. There is nothing anybody can do to “fix” somebody’s homosexuality. It is NOT a mental illness of any sort. Right and wrong is irrefusably deefined by today’s society and what conforms to a majority’s belief.

One of my favorite theories about right and wrong is a modified version of the golden rule we came up with in my college philosophy course. IT states in Doing action A it is morally right for S iff in doing A, S is treating X how X would like to be treated. The only flaw with this theory is that sometimes we do not know how others would want to be treated. That is why i also like Kant’s categorical Imperative. It states that an act is morally right iff the agent could rationally want the universalized version of the particular maxim on which he acted to be followed by everyone.
Example
If i need money i will steal it.
If anyone needs money they will steal it
These actions are morally wrong.

Throught our whole lives, we are always being told what to do, and what not to do by our parents. As we grow up it becomes basic knowledge on things determining weather they are right or wrong. Anyone can infer that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, but charity, and helping is right. Determining what is right from wrong is not something you just know, it is something that we are brought up with and taught by our elders. My father always told me to do the right thing. Everyday he would say, have a great day, think before you act, and do the right thing Well, what is the right thing? To most people the right thing is always obvious in their mind, but if they dont take the time to think about the consequences, then they can’t really be sure who might get hurt along the way. Doing the right thing, takes considering what someone else wants, knowing that they want it, and helping them achieve it. The wrong this is usually doing the opposite of what someone would like to be done.

The standards of right and wrong are pretty much determined by society’s standards. Consider somebody going to jail: they go to jail because of laws dictated by what society states is “right” and “wrong”. If you speed and get pulled over by the cops, it’s because they’re following rules that were set saying that it’s bad to speed. They’re just enforcing the law. Generally, most people agree on basic standards, such as speeding and murdering. Most will say that they are “wrong”, however there are exceptions to the rule, as in all cases. If a person is fighting in self-defense and kills the other person, it’s deemed “not wrong”. If a woman’s having a baby and the person driving her to the hospital is speeding, it’s “not wrong”. (Well it is, but if caught they most likely wouldn’t be repremanded for it.) So, generally speaking, people follow their own standards of right and wrong because they go along in accordance with the law. But, as stated before, some people believe there are “exceptions”.

I liked Crede’s theories of right and wrong, and he is a very intelligent child, I wish I understood this much about philosophy at such a young age. However to get back on the subject of right and wrong, the ethical theory proposed by Crede is flawed however…

Example
If someone knew that their neighbor was a thief it would be the rigth thing to turn them in, but it would not make that person who is receiving the action feel good at all in fact that person would be very upset.

While Crede’s ethical theory covers what people should do rather well, you cannot always take into account the person who is having the action done to them because sometimes people know what is better for you or for society than you do yourself.

In Philosophy 100, we have discussed ethics and right/wrong actions. We have discussed two theories in particular that I am fond of. The first is the Golden Rule, which most of us have been taught since childhood. Essentially it states treat others as you would like to be treated. While this is a good rule of them and generally will work if applied in real life, it does not allow for the few people who might not have their best interest in mind and would like to be treated poorly. To alleviate this “problem”, I like the Categorical Imperative offered by Immanuel Kant. It is similar, but does distinguish itself to me as a sound way to determine what is right or wrong. To sum Kant’s theory up, it states that an action is right if the person performing it would want that action universalized. I like this theory because it takes people out of the equation and negates the objection of the few people who who would like to be treated poorly. The comment above provides a good example of the Categorical Imperative in stealing money. With the CI, it is usually easy to tell a right action from a wrong action when you plug it into the “formula”. That is why I would say it is the preferable way to determine right from wrong.

Right and Wrong—Black and White. No two questions about it.

This is such a broad subject, just as all of the other questions are, simply because of the room for error. Some days I think it would be nice if all of our brains were universally shocked in to defining a CLEAR line for right and wrong. Faith can only go so far, just as self-determination can. You really can’t ever prove something to anyone, but I think for must of us it really is Black and White.

This world is filled with so many good people that choose to do the right thing every day. The answer to WHY these people do this is simple: it feels good to do good things for other people.

For instance, last night it snowed and snowed and snowed. So after deciding to come home from the football game me and some friends perched ourselves on top of a hill to see the damage. Within the small time-frame of an hour we helped four people literally push their cars up a hill.
Why?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Why?
Because it felt awesome to do good for another person.

I would never make a good philosopher, at least in this area.

In all, I believe that if the “general person” in life has goals that aim to better both themselves and others, you can’t go wrong.

I think right and wrong are both things that you learn as a child growing up. Someone could think that they were doing the right thing, while the person whom they are acting on would beleive it was wrong. There is no true definition of the two, so there is no way you can say what is right and wrong, but I think the way Crede defined right and wrong is very true. If you are doing something that you think is right, and it makes the other person happy and not sad, then it should be the right thing to do.

Right and wrong are ideally the golden guidelines in which the world lives by. Unfortunately, who is to determine what is right and what is wrong? These concepts are ones in which in many societies, people are brought up differently in believing what is right versus what is wrong. In one culture, it may be “right” to commit one act that another culture considers “wrong”. But even in all the rights and wrongs of society, there tends to be a universal answer to some of those questions. People often consider something that is right an action or event that is considered just; whereas an action could be considered wrong if it potentially is seen as unjust and unfair. But even so, moral values play into all aspects of right and wrong no matter what culture or society you are specifically looking at. Right and wrong can be decided based on how a person was raised and what their family or guardian has raised them to believe. There is always going to be a debate on what is right and what is wrong but there will never be a cold hard answer despite the hardest studies and most defined experiments. This will forever remain one of philosophy’s major debates.

What is right and wrong is a question that will never be settled among diverse people and cultures. A question like this cannot be expected to have a single answer. There are things that are praised and sacred in other cultures that I could never imagine occuring in my own culture. However it does not just apply to culture. There are people with the same culture as my own who do things that I would never dream of doing or even think about doing. It almost seems as it is a matter of opinion, but it’s not. I think that Kant’s Categorical Imperitive, though confusing, has it right. If you can universalize an opinion and make it a statement, then you can’t go wrong. There has to be other boundaries than just pain and pleasure. Sometimes the right things to do cause pain and the wrong things cause pleasure. That cannot be the only guidelines to what is right and what is wrong. You must look at the big picture. You cannot only look at your reasons for doing the action, but the consquences of your actions. Thinking about what you would like to happen isn’t enough. We live in a world full of people, so you must think about them as well.

The concept of right and wrong actions can be learned through experience or by the books; however the two usually go hand and hand. These actions are taught by a parent or another guardian through the process of growing up often. A right action creates happiness and safety for those involved in the said action. However, a wrong action creates the opposite- unhappiness and the feeling of being unsafe for those involved. Another aspect of right and wrong actions is that there should be a constant and consistent “measuring stick” for all the actions. This is hard in society today because the rules are changing somewhat from day to day. This makes it hard for people because there seems to be grey area where there shouldn’t be. Instead of the grey area there should be a defined line in the sand between right and wrong.

I believe “right and wrong” is a topic that can be discussed in many ways and for the most part I understand the basis of Crede’s logic on right and wrong. But I also feel that just because a action doesn’t make someone happy that I was wrong in my efforts, I could’ve had all the good intentions in the world but it failed to please another. Right and wrong can be percieved differently due to society, certain obligations, and upbringings so the question still remains what’s right and wrong, or is there even a difference between the two?

There is no such thing as an a action being definitively right or wrong. For one to say something is “right” they are usually referring to how the person doing/receiving the action perceives the action. Unfortunately it is impossible to know exactly how any person you want to interact with will react to your action. Any action can be viewed as right or wrong depending on who looks at it. Therefore you cant qualify an action as specifically right or wrong, because an action you/the majority looks at as right or wrong, someone else might look at the other way around. Now it is unethical to assume that certain peoples views are more important then others, so you cant disqualify anyones views based on who they are. In such a scenario, due to the extreme variation of peoples opinions on the same action, it is impossible to quantify any action as definitively right or wrong.
An action is just an action, Person A might think its right and Person B might think its wrong, since neither one of these people are inherently enlightened, neither person is more qualified than the other to label an act as right or wrong. The action remains just an action, right and wrong are solely a matter of perspective.

As an atheist, not having any higher being or power influencing my life, i make the decision as to what is right and wrong by using empathy, experience, and reason. Most Christians rely on unquestionable authority, rather than logical arguements.

What is right and wrong is often a hard thing to define. One must ask do you set a uniform set of rules for any given situation or do you weigh the consequences of your actions and decide which of choices will do the most good or prevent the most harm? In my opinion one must find a happy medium. You must find some sure moral rules that are to be stuck to at all times. This is a show of character. However, when keeping to one of your strongly held moral beliefs could cause great suffering, far beyond that which abandoning your moral code in a particular situation would do, you must be able to choose the greater good. Though I believe what is right or wrong for a particular person in a certain situation does vary these are basic rules that if one follows they are more probable to omake the right decision.

Crede’s ethical theory, C3, is exactly how I depict what is right and wrong. During life you are taught different ways in which what is right and what is wrong but in the end it all depends on if what you are doing is beneficial or hurtful in the end. Crede’s example of the older brother telling his brother to take the toy out of his mouth is a perfect example. At first the little boy is hurt that he has to take the toy out of his mouth but in the end it is beneficial to the kid because he could have hurt himself if he kept the toy in his mouth. As long as your action is beneficial in the end, doesn’t necessarily have to bring happiness, then you are doing the right thing. If in the end all your action does is bring pain or suffering and nothing good comes out of it, then your action was wrong.

The truth is that human beings are subjective when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. As a society, we think murder is a horrible thing. Then, we go to war and shoot people. Therefore, we are wrong, right? I do not think so because it is what is morally right for you in the world we live in today. Someone else might not like your actions but that does not mean you are wrong. For example, you may not want someone to come in your room because you are studying and that specific person does not like your decision, but that does not mean it is wrong. The question will always remain – - – what is right and what is wrong? In the end, I just think it boils down to what your beliefs are.

Right and wrong are just actions with a perceived social stigma attached. These stigma are usually controlled by the ruling class in a particular society.

This is not an easy question to answer and that is why it is still discussed by some of the smartest minds in Philosophy. Part of me wants to say that what is “wrong” is anything that causes unneeded harm to another, and what is “right” is anything that causes unneeded pleasure to another.

Clearly, this leaves a lot of actions as neither right or wrong. In addition, this causes us to try and determine what “unneeded” really means. “Right” and “wrong” actions are ultimately determined by the group that is performing those actions.

Right and wrong is a difficult thing to define. Because one needs to understand that as humans we are subjective in our decisions and ways of thinking. Since not one human thinks the same way, how can we be expected to have standards of right and wrong. Now one could say that right, is treating people respect and causes no harm to someone and that wrong is causing harm to someone. But whether a particular person’s actions are morally right or wrong is ultimately decided through someone’s own personal bias.

Dang. That kid is smarter than the majority of adults. Why? His answer to the question “Why bother to do the right thing?” is correct. “We should all do the right thing because it makes the world better when we do.” Most people try to justify it with things like “it’s better for me” “it’s right according to the law” “I’ll go to heaven.” Those are all wrong. Why? Because doing the right thing is inherently justified. We should do the right thing for only one reason; because it is the right thing.

making people around you happy and also when you are happy too.I think it is important to do the right thing, but only if you do it because you really want to (for pleasure )and not because someone or a religious institution or religion has forced you to do it. we have to act each other doing good things whenever possible.If you donīt want to do good things donīt do anything.

Truth and Falsity

Truth and Falsity

The right\good thing is what the majority of people believe.

Orthodox people believed that sun revolves around sun but when one single person(Galileo) said that earth revolve around sun people declared him wrong and killed him.

a group of nerds people may believe playing basketball is waste of time and group of soccer players may believe studying is waste of time then who is right?
Answer:
if we observe a particular class in school then the one group from above who will consider right is the one having majority of people.

That is what happens in these world .

If you are able to make majority of people believe in you then your ideology will be consider as right and vice-versa.

“AT THE AND ITS ALL ABOUT HAPPINESS”

(the above examples are not meant hurt peoples feelings)

from so many comments it looks like it is difficult to figure out what is right or wrong. No matter how much you try, somebody else will come up with new things. So one should tackle problem in a different way. first start with yourself, if you think u have done something wrong, just also do the contrarian act to balance out everything in this universe. The society universe or family are working because there are always two opposite things working to balance out everything. If everybody start doing same kind of action (good or bad), this universe will cease to exists. If you keep on destroying things, in the end everybody is going to suffer. If you have to cut some trees due to any reason then try to plant some trees to nullify your act. Cutting trees may be right or wrong based on a situation, but in totallity you have nullify the act. Trees and humans are working in tandem to coexist in this world. I am also going to post this article in couple of weeks on dsodhi.wordpress.com