Why do people answer questions saying things like "who are we to decide?"?

Question

Do you think it's true that we are just nobodies when it comes to deciding things that affect us...I sure DON'T. For ie. this one guy on Y ...asked is murder wrong and another guy answers "thoughtfully"...-who are we to decide? I mean come on we live on this planet shouldn't we decide these things... If you have ever given a person an answer like "who are we to decide" why did you do it, for you others what do you think about it?....THANKS in advance for your answers to this kinda weird Q. that I had to get out of my mind.

Do ppl say "who are we to decide" because they believe god must judge everything? If that's true...why was the law made-someone had to decide what was wrong...right?

Answer 1

I believe people respond in this manor because they are moral relativists. Those people believe that everything is gray and that the concept of right and wrong is a artificial division made by powerful, but ignorant people. They believe that because everything is relative you can never say if something is wrong or not, because there is always someone who is doing something worse. They are the people who get pulled over and say to the cop "what did ya pull me over for, that other guy was going faster than i was!" They see themselves as "incitefull" and the rest of the morally conscious people as archaic. And by using this all to quoted phrase, they think they have won an argument because they see no way to argue against it.

Answer 2

We live in a society that is constantly becoming increasingly concerned with political correctness- not judging anyone else or their beliefs and customs, and practicing 100% tolerance. While tolerance of others to a degree is wonderful, and morally obligatory (bigotry is wrong), there is a limit to how far this should go, and sometimes people lose sight of that limit.

When a person says "Who are we to decide?" what they usually mean is that there are differing opinions on what the right answer to a question is, and they don't see any one person or group who is entitled to have their answer count more than everyone else's. Therefore, for lack of ability to choose an authority on the issue, they abandon hope of ever winning the argument in defense of their own view. Instead of deciding what they think is right and defending their view, they throw their hands up and abandon the effort through this cop-out.

While I agree that it is important to acknowledge that there are issues in which there is no clear source of authority (i.e., a person who is most qualified to answer correctly, the way a doctor is most qualified to provide an answer about medicine, or a historian about history, etc.), it is also important to recognize that the difficult questions are often the ones in most need of answering. It is intellectually challenging and sometimes frustrating to try to address these hard questions, but they should be addressed, and those bringing their views to the table should be ready to defend their views with logically sound reasons.

Answer 3

I might have answered that way. There is no fundamental law of the universe deciding right and wrong, it is strictly a function of the human (or any other intelligent) mind. In other words, on earth, no humans - no "right or wrong"

In the middle east, some cultures think it's "right" to kill a daughter that has had pre-marital sex. Male lions often kill the cubs of another male if they take over the pride. Why is one considered by americans to be wrong while another is just instinct with no moral judgement?

Is abortion murder? Is euthanasia murder? If nobody can agree on these, how can we say that murder is absolutely wrong no questions asked?

Answer 4

I think this attitude is too common today, particularly regarding questions of ethics or morality. Like it or not, we usually are the ones who decide, by participating in our government. To say we don't have the knowledge or the right to make these decisions - while it might be true - doesn't give us absolution when the decisions are nonetheless made in our names.

My s.o used to be fond of saying he didn't vote because he didn't know enough about the issues and it would be wrong to vote anyway. I changed his mind by explaining this was a very left-wing viewpoint, and meanwhile right-wing supporters may be winning elections by voting blindly with their peers.

This "who are we to decide" attitude probably comes down to avoiding responsibility. It would be nice if we had qualified professionals who could make these decisions for us, but this isn't how our governments (US, Canada, UK anyway) work. Officials are elected by their constituents, and do what their constituents tell them to do, even if it other people disagree. In democratic countries we all have a responsibility to find out what the issues are and what our stance is on them, and act, speak and vote on them accordingly.

Answer 5

I think it has something to do with the concept that occurs when we have experienced given situations where we have now come to decisions to use both situational and virtual ethics...in our decisions to type such things. For example, the person that gave that answer may have just had a tour of duty and may have seen or experienced "war" killings. They are interpreted as murder by many, yet there are many who, when exposed to authoritarian instruction, have no hesitation to exhibit certain acts of violence--epecially when hesitation could mean certain death for the person committing the act or others within his/her group.

Another example, sometimes the questions here are so vague that to answer under sheer assumption--you do give the wrong advice. So, sometimes it is better to answer in a vague manner than to go off on a tangent that is pointless, or to give advice that might be more damaging than not.

Answer 6

I think some people think we are nobodies, but certainly not everyone.

That's a kind of funny example you use. Well in this sense - there are a lot of things I don't have an opinion on because I recognize that I am uninformed or I don't have the resources to act on any opinion that I would come to (mostly referring to politics there). But even I think murder is wrong. I thought only sociopaths thought otherwise.

And Tarnefar... Religion/God is not the only path to morality. I do not support in either and, well, you might have read the above paragraph.

Answer 7

Excellent question - and you make a good point at the end that somebody has got to make the laws.

Even someone who says "who are we to decide" is expressing an opinion (neutrality) on the matter and so they HAVE decided on something (i.e. that they have no say).

No one in this world has "no opinion." To not care is to be what is called apathetic. Even an apathetic person is taking a position - it's just a really cowardly position.

Answer 8

I agree with you. We certainly can decide what is right or wrong & act accordingly. We have a conscience (hopefully) that helps to guide us. We have laws to govern society. We have punishments for those who break the law. Yes God will deal with them in the afterlife, but we can still deal with them in this world. Evil people shouldn't be allowed to run rampant. If you allow someone to kill others & you don't punish them, then in a sense you are abetting a murderer. You are allowing them to kill more innocent people. How do you justify that?

We are not nobodies. Each of us has value. We are each meant to live the best lives that we can. We are not just helpless pawns incapable of making our own decisions. It is our right & our responsibility to make good decisions.

Answer 9

I agree with you. But from there perspective it's more like, let's not judge, for we might get judged ourselves. Which personally i have no problem with(being judged that is)because i'm not ashemed in who i am. Also not trying to be a **** but those people are weak( and most likely religious) and to scared to make a real decision about anything, or just try not to think to much in general, because there scared of what they might find.

Answer 10

It is a pat answer by people with no moral foundation or a lack of backbone to have an opinion that may not be popular.

"Realtive morality" is a pervasive way of thinking nowadays...just leftover, recycled hippie garble-dee-goop.

If we all have our own individual concept of "right and wrong" and the"who are we to decide" mentality of what is right for us or someone else...then we have anarchy and NOT civilized society.

But, I really don't have an opinion on the subject;)