How do YOU see it? The nature of right and wrong.

[Olin of Xephon]

The Evangelion TV ending brought up a very good point.

Perception is everything, and everything is subjective to the human mind.
Thus, I ask you, is there suc a thing as Right or Wrong?

There are two arguments here.

1. Right (true) Wrong (false) can anybody be truly right or wrong about something when Correct and incrorrect is itself different for every human being.


2. Right (moral) Wrong (imoral)
If things are how we see them. Who is moral who isn't? Everybody's idea of morality differs. Does actual Morality exsist? Or is it all in our heads?

[Cogboy]

All things are relative.

[MAGI]

I like these questions.

To put it simply, truth and moralilty are vague, human inventions. We cannot say something is true or not, good or not if we can't define it properly.

Truth is relative to only oneself. When a thing is true (that is, exists) we can only know that it is ourselves that are. When it is not us, then it has nothing to do with us, and thus may or may not be true. (We may or may not know if something exists, but 'knowledge' is also a vague concept.) When an event is true (that is, happens) we can only know it when it happens to us. If what happened didn't, then it has nothing to do with us, and thus may or may not have happened at all. Truth can not be determined until it happens, and we do not know if it happened until it does to us.
Sorry for confusing you, :oops: but I like to speak my mind.

Morality are simply manifestations of our fears and joys. We may or may not feel unwell at the sight of a decapitated body. We may or may not be affected by the death of a man who runs your local bakery. Morals are essentially vague rules that help us avoid disrrupting or endandering our lives (and those of others, as they have a part to play in our own) that have gone a bit far. Morals can differ or not exist between people and society, because of this.

In other words, you can't answer these questions because it isn't clear.

[gasoline238]

you are correct, sir

[bp32]

While it may be difficult to ever 'discover' truth, or some objective morality as it exists independent of human thought and perception, I think there is still right and wrong. The rules and moral codes that we have may not come from some celestial force, some omnipresent being...however, we as humans have created rules and moral codes "socially". Communities establish legal and moral codes that, once established, have the look and feel of 'objective' morality. These codes bind members of that community together. So I think you can say that there is such a thing as right and wrong--and since we can investigate the source and contetnt of these social codes of morality and law we can actually discover what they are and what they mean pretty objectively. But if you are only going to refer to things such as natural law, then it gets a bit more sticky... :)

[sadsadshinji]

like cog said, all things are relative; to a starving boy in a third world country, its okay to steal, seeing as he is starving, while to a rich child, stealing is wrong. it really depends on the society and environment that the person was brought up in and is currently in.
and magi...that brings up the next question; do we know if we exist? how can we be certain?

[Hexon.Arq]

Nothing.

[Dave]

There are moral absolutes; there is right and there is wrong. The very notion that right and wrong is shaped by our own consciousness is an idea based in selfishness and self-pity. When it comes to what other people know, I am completely ignorant. However, I know the difference between right and wrong. The problem is is that I don't always act according to what I know.

[MAGI]

do we know if we exist? how can we be certain?

The way I see it is "if we exist, then everything else does; if we don't nothing else does". We may not be certain what everything else is, of course. Also, we can't really define existance if we can't compare it to something. It's relativity. So, if we say we exist, then we can try to figure out if something else does, too.
Cognito ergo sum.
We don't even know what we are, anyway.
To understand 100% of anything is impossible.
To understand 100% of anything, we need to understand 100% of everything. That's the only way we can do it, because everything is interconnected, whatever everything are.

Haha. This is so fun.

[Olin of Xephon]

Like Kaji said, "completely understanding something is impossible."
He also said that trying to understand oursleves and the otehrs around us is what makes life so interesting. I have to agree.

I also have to agree with Dave. There are absolutes. Just not very many of them. And even these are subjective up to a point.
For one can say "killing is wrong" obviously this is not true. Killing is something evryone of us may have to do to preserve ourselves or the world around us.
Does that make it right? Under the right circumstances, yes.

However, who can say that raping and then drowning a eleven year old girl is anything but wrong (evil)?

There also is such a thing as good. To say these notions are simply manifestations of our fears and joys, is to a degree correct though.
We as humans understand a evil act, I should say we are capable of undestanding a evil act. Or a good one for that matter. We DO NOT always choose to.

The statement about the starving boy is a very good point. One is wrong for one is not wrong for another. Stealing on a level can be evil.
Stealing to preserve life or aid somebody in dire need, is not.

Again, a certain level of subjectivity. There are exceptions to every rule. That does not mean such a thing as morality is non existant.

As to wether or not we exist. I have a simple answer.
I look around this room and I see my bed. I see DVDs on the shelves, I see clothes I bought. I can touch and feel my desk.
I can type this message. Thus I do on some level exist. If i did not, how could I interact, or more importantly change the world around me?

As for wether or not the world around me exists...I guess I choose to belive it does.

Anymore thoughts?

[feliwood]

I essentailly agree with Dave on truth/morality- there are as many truths as there are people, but only one is your truth (guess I'm kinda quoting Eva on this, but this is an Eva forum, after all). if objective truth, if objective morality, really did exist, no one could comprehend it- their vision would be clouded by their own perceptions of truth and morality.

As for whether we exist, what are you, stupid? (heh, again with the Eva quotes, sorry) Descarte's I think therefore I am holds true- if this is all an illusion or dream, then the illusion must be acting on something, there must be a dreamer. Even if we don't objectively exist, if an outside viewer sees nothing of us, we still subjectively exist- the world arround us exists in our perception, which makes it real for us.

[MAGI]

what are you, stupid?

Sorry for confusing you, feliwood (and everyone), but that's how I feel. Really, until we can say what we are, exactly, then we can't tell what aspect of us exists. Think of it as "there could be things that are beyond what we comprehend".

Here's a hypothetical that's been bothering me for a few years, now:
Do we exist? As in, the way we think we do? What is it to be thinking and feeling? What is it to believe we are a conscious?
Is it that our thoughts, feelings, memories and all are billions of individual cells whipping electricity around? Apparently, yes. Perhaps it was the doubt that gave rise to the concept of souls: that we are not simply a complex lump of grey/white matter. I mean, can anyone imagine themselves not thinking and feeling anymore? No. It's beyond our comprehnsion.
So, how we think and feel could be perceived as tranmissions of data between the cells in our brains. Now, what if it wasn't?
What if we are something that happened for an isntant, and quickly lost? In some undefined place, many inexplicable things happens, and, for an instant, there was a thing that, say, thought - you. That thing thought that it was born, that it learnt a language, that it lived in a world, and is currently reading the contents of this page, here. Say that this thing was a great coincidence, to have this knowledge. It thinks that it exists the way it did. But, say, just as quickly, it vanished back to the chaos of that undefinition, as things continue to inexplicable move about.
If that thing was you, then you'd think that you exist, right? But how do you know you are continuing to exist if you can only know now? How do you prove that you just blinked? Well, you could try by calculating the air movements in the air, somehow, and deduct its occurence. But then, when you do, how do you know that really are what you are? I mean, what, really, is it to know?

Look, sorry to confuse you more, but the above example was simply that: an example. There could be, I think, an infinite number of possibilties for something to exist. It could be that the universe is a chair, and that every bottle that the chair is made of is also the same thing. And the space around it is a bunch of unseen possibilities. We can't prove it exists, but we can't prove it doesn't, either, because that place does not have the same rules as this, and thus can't be translated. I, or you, could be the sapce around the chair. Or, perhaps, we could be that chair, and is thinking it is a human on a world called Earth. Can I prove that the chair can think? No. But what if it was?

Okay, I think I might be going nowhere with this, if you don't understand what I'm trying to suggest.
I'll use a simple example, now, okay?
If there is a dead body in front of you, can you be sure it is not thinking? There is no way you can tell, because it can't tell you, and you can't find out. (It's dead.)
You can say that being able to think requires the brain to be still alive, but how can you tell? The brain dies, and the whole body can't move, but you still can't tell if that consciousness is still there or not.
You see, here, it doesn't matter if it exists or not, as it has nothing to do with you, anymore.

That just takes me back to my original point. We can't tell if something exists, and we can't tell if we do. We can only assume that we do, and just go on with what makes us happy. We may not exist, but as long as we think we do what we do, it all doesn't matter.
In other words, knowledge of existence is futile. So, don't answer that question, because it isn't clear, and doesn't matter either way.

Fun fun fun.

[sadsadshinji]

olin: how can you be sure you are percieving things? how can you be sure that you are not the dream of a 5th dimensional being? for all practical purposes we exist, yet do we really? we exist in "our" realities, yet we dont exist in others.
and the descartes theorem, "think" is an abstract term: is it brain activity? is it consiousness?
it is impossible to understand everything; everything that is discovered reveals more questions, as it is impossible to completely understand something, as MAGi said.
and the meaning of life is...whatever you desire it to be: your reality is shaped by your perceptions, you wants, your dreams; thus only you can give yourself meaning in your life, in your reality.
i dont know why i said that...
which brings up fatality...are we fated to do things?

[Olin of Xephon]

But if we continue (as I assume most of us have been doing our entire lives) to ASSUME we exist, we do.

That is to say, if the essential me, you, or they, did NOT exist, we would not be able to percieve them as a me, you, or they.

To expound, I know I exist in this room. I know I have hair on my arms, and a weird scar on my head. I know these thing beacuse I can see them, I can sense them, I can feel them.

As to wether what I see feel and sense, really exists, is not for me to say.
For I can percive nothing else. I think, therefore I am.
Wether or not what I think is correct, a illusion, or something beyond my comprehension does not really matter. Beause I have the capability to exist on some level or another.

Ahh...the relitivity of reality.

[sadsadshinji]

its really all very abstract so its hard to define...
but if we assume that we exist and thus, we exist, then can we make things exist by our assumption of their existence?
what is reality? what is life? what is consciousness? we may never know...

[coff]

1. Right (true) Wrong (false) can anybody be truly right or wrong about something when Correct and incrorrect is itself different for every human being.

2+2 = 4. If someone says 2+2 = 5, they are wrong.

2. Right (moral) Wrong (imoral)
If things are how we see them. Who is moral who isn't? Everybody's idea of morality differs. Does actual Morality exsist? Or is it all in our heads?

This one is more complicated. Different cultures have different morals, therefore something that is seen as immoral in one culture might be commonplace in another.

[MAGI]

Joy to this thread!

So, to sum it all up:
* You exist
* What you perceive is all you've got
* So what you think exists does
* What you realize doesn't exist doesn't, anymore
* Truth is impossible to tell
* Therefore we don't know whether something truly exists
* We don't know, for sure, what "Dr. Akagi, I truly..." will be.

So, morailty:
* What moral is depends on what you're learnt it is
* Dakara, morality is not set, and differs between people
* Morality exists, but is, therefore, not absolute
* And is subject to humane vaguity. (Like that wording?)

And fate:
* It exists, if we choose to acknowledge it
* It cannot be determined, as it involves understanding of all things and in which direction they are going
* "Something in happening causes something else to happen, which causes something else to happen." - Douglas Adams
* Fate is random in the sense that it is inevitable at the same time
* Like several rows of domino blocks weaving between each other, and an infinite number of ways to start them falling; once it starts (with a random choice of which block to knock off first) it becomes calculable, especially if you were not one of the domino blocks.

And what you should do about it:
* Do whatever the heck you want, if you choose to (which will be fated), so just let whatever happens happen as it was fated in the first place, even your inactivity was.
* Forget this entire thread altogether
* Eat ice-cream
* (A.N. I was fated to type that in )

[sadsadshinji]

but coff...the names that we give numbers are arbitrary...what if in a parallel universe a 2 that followed a 2 was really a 3?
and MAGI....amen

[Olin of Xephon]

I love the way you guys think!
Mind if I bounce around a couple of more ideas?

Say all of existance IS a illusion a dream of that fabled other individual who lives in the seventh dimension...Or the seventh circle of some heaven nobody hs ever imagined.

Does this make the existance we interact with any less real?

Certaintly, reality is real to us. Does it being a dream make it unreal?
Are the dreams we dream at night any less real beacuse they are dreams?

Untill are waking moment, they are the reality we exist in.

MAGI brought up fate. Why are you convinced it exists?
Cetaintly not everything we do is of our own free real, I sometimes feel a guiding hand. Were that hand guides me are usualy places I would not have considered on my own. So fate, or destiny I belive to exist.

However, I also belive in free will.

What is your opinion of free will?

[coff]

but coff...the names that we give numbers are arbitrary...what if in a parallel universe a 2 that followed a 2 was really a 3?
and MAGI....amen

Mathematics is completely universal. 2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter what names you give to the numbers. For example: }} + }} = }}}}.