Nah that's a bad debate. A good debate would have people providing accurate counter arguments to the original arguments instead of haring off elsewhere or worse, falling back on arguments about definitions...

Yeah you're right about the RL applications. Unless that person were held to speak the truth and could be trusted every time, then no one would listen. And he'd be thrown into an asylum.

Hmm I do believe in the concept of pure right. And that there is a total, net right and wrong for everything... But I can't explain why... -tears hair-

As in, in every situation, there is a sort of sliding scale of correctness, but that still means that the scale has its highest point (pure right) and lowest point (wrong), yes? The scale is relative, meaning that for every judgement, there is a right and there is a wrong that, when compared to other situations, may fall in a gray area. I believe that if a justice sense exists, it wouldn't be a zero sum thing, ie it's EITHER right OR wrong. It would register the sliding scale but since within that situation itself, there is one that is more right, or more wrong, it would reflect the more right and take that to be right. I think.

Wah limited view eh. But we're not God. And given our limited faculties, we're bound to work within a limited view. It's bound to happen. But it doesn't hamper the fact that we're still, within this limited view, able to recognize right and wrong...

Am I making sense?

Not really. Debates about definitions ARE people taking a point and interpreting it differently to give them the advantage. I'm not saying they hare off elsewhere - just that they develop the argument in the direction which will benefit them, which is what people naturally do. But it's kind of tiresome to watch. Sure, they counter the argument placed by the opposition, that's part of what they're supposed to do, but after that they need to place their own point, too.

If he felt the right to speak out on ANYTHING right or wrong, he'd likely get killed or something, too. -wry- Unless he's pretty powerful, politically. Then we wonder how he'd survive the days being wrong - what with the bad rap politicians get of being liars.

Your "right" is the same as mine, except that you seem to like taking it in more excessive terms. I agree with your scale, and that's what I mean by something being "more right". But just because a point exists doesn't mean something can reach it. So while there might be a tip that says "PURELY RIGHT", it doesn't necessarily mean anything on the world can reach that point.

By the way, your zero sum thing - a judgement is basically saying that something, compared to another thing, is less correct, and subjectively, comparatively, wrong. Compared to something else, it might be "right" instead. So your ideas of "right" and "wrongs" aren't absolutes, they're comparative ideas. Even if one side had more things going right for them in just this situation, so?

Personally, I wouldn't call that right or wrong, what people operate with. I'd call it "socially acceptable" or "socially unacceptable". Or take it into the gray area of morals, if you will, which's bound to society/social values too. They say our parents are supposed to teach us what's right or wrong, but essentially they're teaching us what others accept and what they don't - wrong means you get punished when you do something.

Oooh this sounds like it's getting philosophical in here!

Ok I think we've both established that we're thinking in terms of relative morality here. But I contend with something you brought up -



If nothing can reach a point, then the point, ultimately, doesn't exist. If it's going to be there only as an abstract ideal, then it isn't really there is it?

On the other hand, if you argue that yes, even if it's a mere, purely abstract point on the sliding scale it exists, then you're also committing yourself to the idea that the pure abstract sense of RIGHT exists. So yes, right and wrong are comparative, but being comparative isn't mutually exclusive with being present in a pure, abstract ideal form.

Yeah a girl brought that up too. She said that human morality is a purely social construct. But, does this mean that there isn't a set of 'correct' morals then? Because you could argue that just because the people of country A think eating humans is fine because after all, who are we as outsiders to judge their set of moral values right?

Philosophical indeed. Is it putting you off? (I know you're stressed about philo. XD)

Hmm the thing about "existing" -- when I say "pure right doesn't exist", I mean it doesn't exist concretely because it is unattainable. When I say "we can strive towards a point of pure right that exists", I mean it exists abstractly. Abstract /=/ concrete. Perhaps it's just inadequate phrasing.

However, the abstract doesn't distract from the comparative. I still think rightness and wrongness is too subjective.

Actually, eating humans is not fine from a biological perspective, if we want to take that as the most essential form of human values.