To truely know something is wrong (to do), would you have to have done it in the past?
example: (and not that i have done this) but lets say you did something cruel to an animal or human. now you truly relize what you did was wrong.
does an assured conscience (based on past experiances)seal the deal on an opinion?
if you hadnt done it before, do you really know it was wrong?
so is it better to have done something wrong so thatyou understand it better?
2006-12-14 06:57:47 · 7 answers · asked by Meeowf 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think that is not necessary to do something that is wrong in order to know that is wrong. You can learn from experiences of other people.
I do not agree with those that believe the only way to advise a children that drugs are a direct way to death is that you experienced them during youth.
You can read, hear or watch from others that drugs are very bad to use them and consequently to know that this is a very wrong thing to do.
If you did something wrong in the past (as a part of your normal growing) was your fault and you kept that experience for future learning but I think that is better that you have not done it in order to learn that is wrong.
Good luck!
2006-12-14 08:21:02 · answer #1 · answered by CHESSLARUS 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe an assured conscience does seal the deal on an opinion. ignorant opinions are a big pet peeve of mine, and frankly worthless. however, i don't believe that one should have to do something wrong in order to understand it or confirm it's negative value. humans are built with "common sense". more common for some than others, but ultimately everyone is born with a God-given right/wrong detector.
2006-12-14 08:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by mike h 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, right and wrong are based on what human beings evolved to believe are right and wrong, so I think that many of those wrong things come naturally to us as being wrong.
You also have to take into consider that a child will always take their mothers word for it . . . so they don’t ever need to murder someone to know how much it can hurt people. Mom said it was wrong so it’s wrong.
To some degree, people don’t always connect the dots, so they do need to test the waters to really see how wrong an action can be. I find that many people have trouble being empathetic to situations they have not yet themselves experienced.
2006-12-14 09:23:51 · answer #3 · answered by A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Wrong" is a broad term. What one person thinks is wrong the other person may not. Honestly there aren't as many things that are "wrong" as people believe. However, to know something is wrong is to understand its ethical implications as being counter to an absolute. Such as murder is wrong because it takes away someones ability to live against there will, and no one should force a person to do anything against their will unless its in defense of their own individuality. So, since I understand murder is wrong, why would I need to murder to understand it better?
If you truly understand something as being wrong there is no reason to commit the act just to experience it. The trick is discovering whether something is truly wrong, or just not the social norm.
2006-12-14 08:27:54 · answer #4 · answered by spydazweb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." That applies to everything.
Is it any less wrong to torture and murder someone if the perpetrator didn't "know" it was wrong? Naturally, no.
2006-12-14 08:54:40 · answer #5 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know that smoking crack is wrong, and I ain't never smoked crack.
2006-12-14 08:29:30 · answer #6 · answered by Maus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
god im bored...
2006-12-14 08:35:51 · answer #7 · answered by metroactus 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋