Right VS. Wrong is BS

[Scylla]

If you think about it, it is actually a rather arbitrary way to make decisions. There are lots of other criteria just as valid as right vs wrong, maybe some more so. Why is this the final filter?

How about what is kind vs. unkind?
respectable vs. unrespectable?
constructive vs. destructive?
aesthetically pleasing vs. ugly?
stylish vs. gauche?
legal vs. illegal (this one's interesting in that it replaces right and wrong quite a bit these days.)

Let's say something is kind, respectable, and constructive. Wouldn't that outway the fact that it was wrong?

Shouldn't you do it then?

[Pyrex®]

My world never has two poles to an argument.
If there aren't shades of grey, plus come coloring, it's a faulty picture.

[friedo]

Uhhhhh, Scylla, I have no idea WTF you're talking about....perhaps you should clarify a bit.

Why do you think those traits you listed are inherrently mutually exclusive? If something is kind, respectable, and constructive, it most likely would be right, wouldn't it?

Or are you trying to convery some sense of ethical relativism?

[Thrashbarg]

Let's say something is kind, respectable, and constructive. Wouldn't that outway the fact that it
was wrong?

Shouldn't you do it then?

Do what, exactly? It's nigh on impossible to argue the right/wrongness of an action, without an example to work from. As for using right or wrong being an arbitrary way to make decisions...it's the only way we have, methinks. Let's say we use kind/unkind, respectable/unrespectable, constructive/destructive, etc. as bases for decision. I think we're STILL using right/wrong as the final filter. Is this right because it's the kind thing to do? Is this right because it happens to be constructive?

And since we're stuck with using right/wrong, just what ARE they, anyway? Does one go with the majority, or make an individual value judgement based on personal perception of the circumstances involved?

Sorry if this is kind of a semi-hijack, but (with all due respect) I feel that the OP is a bit ill-defined. Would you mind elaborating a little?

[glee]

Scylla,

I think you may be using circular definitions.

Let's say some action is kind, respectable, and constructive. It will probably be defined legal. It BECOMES right.

A separate complication is historical perspective. Slavery used to be legal. Women didn't have the vote.

Finally, like other posters, I need solid examples to discuss. What action is kind, respectable, constructive, yet wrong?

Have a nice day.

[Scylla]

No imagination.

How about a fifty year old guy with no Health Insurance is diagnose with a terminal disease. To preserve his estate for his wife and children, and so that he doesn't suffer the indignity of a long drawn out illness, he commits suicide.

Such an action may be kind, respectable, and constructive, but wrong.

[David B]

Who says it's wrong?

[Enderw24]

The interesting thing about your example and, I would hazzard to guess, most every example is that it is BOTH kind and unkind. It is BOTH repectable and unrespectable. It is BOTH constructive and destructive. It is both legal and illegal. It is BOTH right and wrong.

How can it be all of those things? Because they're opinions and can be interpreted however the person feels from whatever perspective he or she is coming from.

How can something be both legal and illegal? That doesn't make sense, does it? Well, it does. If legal issues were black and white we would have no need for a courtroom. We could feed all the information into a computer and have it spit out a verdict. We don't do that because the same act can be legal or illegal, and right or wrong, depending on how it's looked at...or even who is looking at it.

[matt_mcl]

I think it's ridiculous to try to define the ethicality of an action without reference to its consequences, but that's just me.

[Skribbler]

Sometime back I watched a report on a couple of drug dealers operating out of a small, impoverished town. They funneled large amounts of their ill gotten gains back into the place, giving money to the poor, providing no interest loans, starting businesses, establishing charities, and generally being good guys.

Out of town, however, they imported and dealt illegal drugs, knocked off the occasional competitor, beat the crap out of others, skirted the law and happily kept people stealing from other people to get money to buy the drugs they sold, which the folks were addicted to.

The cops finally tracked them down and arrested them, slamming them in jail for many, many years, even though their entire town rose up to defend these 'good boys'.

It was 'wrong' that they sold deadly dope. It was 'right' that they helped their town out.

[glee]

Scylla,

We asked for examples. You gave:
'How about a fifty year old guy with no Health Insurance is diagnose with a terminal disease. To preserve his estate for his wife and children, and so that he doesn't suffer the indignity of a long drawn out illness, he commits suicide.
Such an action may be kind, respectable, and constructive, but wrong.'

OK, as matt_mcl said, you should define the ethicality of an action by reference to its consequences.

Is the suicide kind?
It puts the ill man out of pain, but it will still cause unhappiness to his family and friends. I would call it merciful.

Is the suicide respectable?
Understandable, yes, but surely not respectable. At least one church says it's a sin. You say 'my daughter's a teacher' or 'I work at a local charity' to be respectable. You don't say 'my husband committed suicide' in the same way. Friends don't reply 'I'm so sorry' and start crying when you tell them something respectable.

Is the suicide constructive?
Here I would call it an unfortunate necessity. It is true that long-term medical care can be ruinously expensive. But this does not improve the family's position. It just stops it getting worse (and rules out any chance of benefitting from medical advances).

Is it wrong?
I would not condemn anyone who took such a terrible step, provided they have agreed it with their family. You could say that society has failed this family (depending on the availablity of health insurance).

So I don't think your example is kind, respectable or constructive. Personally I don't think it's wrong either.

Another example?

[glee]

Skribbler,

you posted a story about drug dealers.

Quote 'Out of town, however, they imported and dealt illegal drugs, knocked off the occasional competitor, beat the crap out of others...'

I assume 'knocked off' is a euphemism for murder.

Quote continued '...skirted the law...'

Whoah! Murder is 'skirting the law'?

Quote continued 'It was 'wrong' that they sold deadly dope. It was 'right' that they helped their town out.'

Well I think the misery they caused doesn't justify their other actions. A wrong and a right doesn't make a right!

I think that what people are trying to say is that "Right" and "Wrong" are not, in and of themselves, absolutes.

Some actions which we would call wrong may have extenuating circumstances, some actions we call right may be done for reasons which fall far short of altruism.

I think that Right and Wrong all depend on what side of the fork you're on (vague reference to cannibalism).

It's a funny world we live in, people, and there are very few, if any, absolutes.

Even murder can be "right." Disagree? If someone rapes your sister/lover/daughter/friend and gets away with it, kill the sonofabitch. That's the right thing to do, and I don't care WHAT the law says. Let's face it: at times, the legal system can be one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.

[David B]

Sure, blessedwolf, that's the "right" thing to do.

Unless, of course, you turn out to be wrong...

We have laws for a reason.

[glee]

blessedwolf,

If your lover/friend is acquitted of rape, and someone kills them and gets away with it, kill the sonofabitch. That's the right thing to do, and I don't care WHAT the law says.

Let's face it: at all times, the lynch mob is one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.

Originally posted by David B
We have laws for a reason.

I'm not saying otherwise! I know as well as the next guy (as long as the next guy doesn't live in a shack in Montana) that laws are in place because anarchy is the fastest route to social collapse.

But about the vigilante scenario I proposed: What if you walked in on the guy doing it? And because his lawyer was better than yours, he got off? You can't tell me that a situation similar to that has never arisen.

At any rate, perhaps that was a bad example. But to say that laws are based upon what's "right" is just plain silly.

a better (and less extreme) example: ever try to order a burger medium-rare? It can't be cooked that way any more because it's illegal.
But a medium-rare burger isn't a right/wrong issue. It's personal preference.

Originally posted by glee
Let's face it: at all times, the lynch mob is one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.

I never said anything about morality. That is a nebulous concept dictated by society, and only slightly more of an absolute than "right" or "wrong."

[Odesio]

a better (and less extreme) example: ever try to order a burger medium-rare? It can't be cooked that way any more because it's illegal.
But a medium-rare burger isn't a right/wrong issue. It's personal preference.

Most fast food places will not cook a hamburger anything other then well done. If you go to some place like Fudruckers, Chilis, or Bennigans you can order a hamburger rare, medium, or well done.

Marc

Originally posted by MGibson
Most fast food places will not cook a hamburger anything other then well done. If you go to some place like Fudruckers, Chilis, or Bennigans you can order a hamburger rare, medium, or well done.

Marc

Marc, ny friend, where do you live? All three of those places are in my town, and I've tried to get a MR burger at them, but couldn't!

[David B]

blessedwolf said:

But about the vigilante scenario I proposed: What if you walked in on the guy doing it? And because his lawyer was better than yours, he got off?

And what if your girlfriend/wife actually picked him up in a bar and then, when you walked in on them, claimed rape? And then you went out and murdered him because of her lie?

At any rate, perhaps that was a bad example.

Not just "perhaps." Any example based on vigilantism would be a bad example.

a better (and less extreme) example: ever try to order a burger medium-rare? It can't be cooked that way any more because it's illegal.

I do believe you're wrong. I don't have any information handy (and I just did a quick search at snopes, finding nothing), but it seems to me that there is no such law. As I recall, there may be a law requiring that you be notified that eating meat cooked this way is risky, but that's a different issue. I also seem to recall that a number of restaurants started refusing to cook meat this way because of potential lawsuits, but again, that's not a law.

Now, if you have a citation to back up the claim, I'd like to see it.

[glee]

blessedwolf,

You posted
...Let's face it: at times, the legal system can be one of the worst arbiters of morality we have.'

I parodied that posting.

You then said 'I never said anything about morality.'

[The Ryan]

The definition of "right" is "that which should be done". The definition of "wrong" is "that which should not be done". So if something is wrong, then by definition, it should not be done. If you think that suicide should be done, then you believe that it is not wrong.

[Skribbler]

Glee:

The diatribe was to display that in a series of actions, there can be what appears to be both right and wrong. However, the initial action (drug dealing) was wrong because of the deadly ramifications, which voided the right of pumping needed cash into their community.

Skirting the law, means they managed to avoid getting caught, bribed a few cops, kept paid flunkies on the street dealing their stuff and avoided staying in one place too long.

Suicide is questionable. I don't know if it is in any of the Ten Commandments that taking one's own life is a sin. I think men 'interpreted' that as murder and wrote it down as so. (Holy men can screw up so much stuff.)

I, for one, would not wish to linger for months or years in agony, drugged into a stupor, no hope of ever getting better, perhaps on a breathing machine, tube fed, getting bed sores as my mind rotted and a disease ravaged my body. The economic drain on my family would be enormous, along with the emotional one. Dying has no dignity if prolonged. You mess your bed, piss through a tube, your skin flakes and looks grubby, your hair smells, eyes mat up, encrustation's form around your nose, all pleasure is gone. Your body stiffens, your skin breaks down in pressure points.

You might be regulated to a nursing home, where the staff will steal from you, neglect you, let you lie in shit, clean you well only if visitors come and rob you of dignity. The mind will go, the pain might be there forever, and a breathing machine sounds damned uncomfortable to me. Plus, you'll be prone to pneumonia.

I'd opt for suicide. Do it right and it is clean, swift and neat. I know how to do it right. The pain caused to the family is much less than watching a once robust lover, father, friend, or wife turn into a bundle of stiff, skin coated bones, or gurgling life away one painful breath at a time, for ages.

In many circumstances, suicide should not be against the law. Insurance companies should pay for suicidal deaths because they'd have to pay when the person dies of 'natural' causes later.

I was once asked to assist a terminally ill person with suicide. All I had to do was walk 20 feet, go into his closet, get his gun, load it and give it to him. He was rich. He offered to pay me whatever I wanted. He did not wish to die slowly. I declined, mainly because according to the law, I would be an accessory to homicide. I did not want to go to jail.

Had there been no law against it, I probably would have given him his gun, and walked outside for a smoke.

As it was, he died a slow death and I have been pissed off at that law which kept me from doing what would have been right, ever since.

In some circumstances, I figure suicide is right.

[David B]

In many circumstances, suicide should not be against the law.

And where it is against the law, anybody convicted should be given the death penalty!

[Satan]

Originally posted by David B

blessedwolf said:

I do believe you're wrong.

Actually, she is right as far as North Carolina is concerned, and many other states. I recently enjoyed a bloody burger in Ohio and forgot how great they are.

I do hope you can take my word as someone who waited on tables and had to enforce this law, as well as someone who hopes that Illinois - my next destination - is not as silly as NC.

The law was put there because of some idiots who caused people to die by mishandling ground beef. The law is not extended to steak.

Oh, and you can't use a raw egg in anything either in this state.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, six days, 22 hours, 43 minutes and 3 seconds.
7597 cigarettes not smoked, saving $949.73.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes.

I slept with a moderator!

[Skribbler]

DAVIDB

I profoundly disagree.

Is life so precious that we MUST force it to linger on after the spark is gone? Who are we to dictate to a ravaged, painful body that it MUST die slowly, torturously to salve our conscience of what is right because some long dead human man interpreted religious scriptures in a certain way?

Torture is against the law. Torture is inhuman. Have you ever come close to suffocating? You know that panicky feeling, the struggle for breath, the sensation in the lungs, and then the refreshing gasp of fresh air? I consider drowning, suffocation and strangulation to be about the most hideous of deaths.

Would you regulate a terminally ill lung disease patient to living short of breath, feeling like they are almost suffocating most of the time, afraid to move, to talk, to eat or drink for fear of using up energy which might make it worse, or so weak that they cannot, for months? Would you let them lie in a hospital bed, feeling the thickness of the mucous in their lungs like a rock, struggling to breath, having coughing fits that strain muscles and seem never to end, causing them nearly to pass out, knowing they will not get better?

And they know it also?

I was present when a man died of major emphysema. I was one of the ones there as they used the biggest gauge tube we had to try and draw the sticky, yellowish, mucous out of his trachea with the suction pump set on max -- and barely moving the stuff. He was plugged and died as we worked on him. Luckily, we were under orders not to bring him back.

He had been an athletic man all of his life. When he died, he was skin and bones, confined to laying still in a hospital bed, waiting for that awful moment that arrived or, hopefully, for his heart to fail.

Had it not been against the law, at his request, I'd have shot him or given him the means to do it himself .. for free.

I guess, from your response, that you prefer to have people linger with no hope and endure for ages a torture that doesn't stop until death. AIDS patients, if they reach that final stage, should be allowed to opt for suicide. Pneumonia with complications usually gets most of them.

For those who can afford it, they can live well for ages. Those who cannot, die rather quickly and slowly and painfully.

Even murderers on death row are killed with no pain and no suffering.

There is no dignity in death, but there can be in how one dies.

[glee]

Skribbler,

you posted 'The diatribe was to display that in a series of actions, there can be what appears to be both right and wrong.'

I agree with that, though I think the key phrase is 'appears to be'.

For example, you could say that an employee who defrauds a company, but gives the stolen money to charity appears to be both right and wrong. (I think they're wrong).

I thought the Catholic church said that suicide was a sin. (I'm not a Catholic, so stand ready to be corrected).

I understand that you care about people suffering terminal illness, and think it may be right for them to put them selves out of their misery.
But I think you're missing a couple of points.

First, I'm not sure that loading a gun, handing it to its adult owner and walking away can possibly be an offence. It's certainly not homicide.

Second I think DavidB is mocking the law for saying suicide is an offence, by saying the state might as well kill the person who has just tried to commit suicide.
You're mixing that up with assisting a suicide (which I think is a separate offence).

Originally posted by Satan
Actually, she is right as far as North Carolina is concerned, and many other states.[/b]

umm...Satan? (checks package) I'm a he.

[Satan]

Noted.

Apologies.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, one week, 17 hours, 12 minutes and 18 seconds.
7628 cigarettes not smoked, saving $953.58.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 40 minutes.

I slept with a moderator!

[David B]

Uh, Skribbler, I hate to break it to you, but you wasted a perfectly good rant. I am in complete agreement. See "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

Satan -- I'm checking on the UL-ness of the "medium rare" aspect over at snopes. Maybe I'm wrong at the local level, but blessedwolf made it sound like a national law.

And where/when you gonna be in Illinois?

[Satan]

Originally posted by David B

Satan -- I'm checking on the UL-ness of the "medium rare" aspect over at snopes. Maybe I'm wrong at the local level, but blessedwolf made it sound like a national law.

What, my word isn't good enough? Pishaw!

Trust me, David. After the Jack In The Box debacle several years ago (several people died from their mishandled and tainted beef), many states made laws about how ground beef had to be cooked to a certain temperature inside and out, effectively removing anything less than medium from a legal burger. No, it's not national, but in the case of his analogy, I don't think that matters.

And where/when you gonna be in Illinois?

What, I have to sleep with another moderator?!?

Well, plans change, but right now, the plan is for Drain Bead and myself to move to Chicago when she starts law school there in August 2001. Needless to say, we'll keep you informed, even if you don't believe me about the beef thing...
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, one week, 22 hours, 1 minute and 15 seconds.
7636 cigarettes not smoked, saving $954.59.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes.

I slept with a moderator!

[andros]

Can't serve a rare burger in Utah, either. It's not national, just state by state. But enough states have made laws about it to make blessedwolf's point a valid one, IMO.

[Skribbler]

DAVIDB:

Mucho apologies.But who in the Catholic Church decided this? Most Christians and Christian variants know that the Bible was translated from Hebrew and some know that the translation was not always exact due to different meanings for words. Many know that ordinary men, all fired up in 'belief' 'interpreted' different sayings, texts or rules, usually basing them heavily on their own traditions of the time.

The era was a Patriarchy, which equaled women being considered property, thusly most mention of women in the Bible put women in a second class or not exactly a good role.

Just like Someone decided that there should be a pope and someone else decided that nuns were to be the 'brides of Christ' -- something I don't think they asked Him about first, someone else decided that suicide under any circumstances just had to be a sin.

I mean you look at our TV evangelists and they claim things concerning religion that I seriously doubt have ever been in the Bible. (I don't think Christ, who was born in the Middle East, was/is not the White way He is portrayed in the most common and famous painting of Him, ever forbid the mixing of races under one church roof.)

Murder usually means the deliberate taking of another's life against their desires and will. It is suspected that the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill,' was to be translated from Hebrew as 'Thou Shalt Not Murder.' (That still somewhat causes problems for people during wars, no matter how you cut it. The enemy doesn't want you to immolate him and you certainly don't want him making you dead. However, you both will be disposed of by your Officers if you fail to do your duty, because they are depending on you to murder each other to win the war.)

Suicide is the willing taking of one's own life. The big concern is people doing so out of temporarily altered mental states caused by extreme sadness, depression or psychosis.

A slowly rotting living corpse in a hospital with no hope of recovery should not be allowed to suffer. I don't like this bit of 'pulling the plug' which essentially turns off the breathing machine. They open up the airway and if the person cannot breath, then he/she suffocates. I think they should be given the gentler option we give death row prisoners: lethal injection.

Doctors could do it. After all, they and the family decide not to resuscitate a critically ill person if their heart fails.

[David B]

Hmmmm. Well, over on snopes, this question about cooking meat got over 20 responses in just a few hours! And they span the gamut.

One thing Mjollnir said there was:

The Feds have issued guidelines (not really having the force of law), and a number of the various state Health Departments comply with the guidelines and issue their regulations on how the foods should be cooked. So, no, I wouldn't say it's technically a "law," but the Health Department can still shut them down for not properly following their regulations.

But others quoted news stories indicating that some states do indeed have laws about it (interestingly, Illinois was one of those states, but it's news to me; then again, I like my meat cooked, so I never had reason to pay attention to this).

And others thought, like I did, that it was just restaurants covering their asses.

Anyway, rather than requoting the whole thing, here's the thread for you to peruse:

http://161.58.238.106/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002140.html

[Satan]

This is so off topic, but I am not registered over at snopes and have no desire to add yet another message board to my lists.

From Health Cops, Citing E. Coli, Advocate Well-Done Burgers in The Wall Street Journal (July 15, 1999), "Well-publicized, sometimes deadly outbreaks of E. coli bacteria contamination in ground beef, however, have made the pinkish burger into a pariah on many of the nation's grills. One impetus has been legislation. States including California, Illinois and North Carolina have enacted laws requiring that burgers be cooked medium to medium well, or to a temperature that reaches at least 155 degrees in the center of the patty for 15 seconds."

While the article does claim that in California, you can buy a rare burger if you request it and know the risks, I also found an article from the San Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 11 /98) "STATE'S RAW FOOD LAW HALF-BAKED, CHEFS SAY RULE TOUGH ON SOME RESTAURANT FAVORITES" says differently.

In addition, from The Foodservice Thermometer (a Foodservice trade publication covering Michigan) as early as 1995 said that if you succumbed to a customer and made an undercooked burger and he wound up sick, "His attorney will ask you if you knew the law required cooking hamburger to temperatures which destroyed E. coli. Good luck, if your answer is, 'Well, yes, but he wanted it that way'."

Now, you are right in at least some cases, David. In the Pittsburgh Business Times (June 2, 1997), an article entitled "DINERS ARE BROILED BY A BLOODY BATTLE - EXECUTIVES ARE SEEING RED, BUT NOT IN THEIR HAMBURGERS", says that "Guillermo Cole, public information officer for the health department, is quoted as
saying that, 'If the restaurant tells you the health department prohibits serving a rare or medium rare hamburger, that's not the case. They'll use us as a cover for their own policies. The restaurant may not want to serve it at less than 155 for their own reasons. It could be for fear of liability and they don't want to look like
the bad guy'."

In addition, "Rare burgers put cooks on spot" from The Cincinnati Post (08-18-99) says, "The official stance of health departments in both states is that ground beef should be cooked to at least 155 degrees, which rules out rare and medium-rare burgers.

"But it's only a recommendation, not the law in either state."

But that said, in some places, it is in fact against the law to serve a hamburger that is not cooked to a certain degree.

For the record, this law bites, in my opinion, but there ya go...
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, one week, one day, 2 hours, 44 minutes and 56 seconds.
7644 cigarettes not smoked, saving $955.57.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 0 minutes.

I slept with a moderator!

[David B]

The first article you mention was also mentioned at snopes (and is the one I was confused about, considering that it mentions Illinois).

But just FYI, you don't have to be registered to read at snopes.