Is there any act or event that people -- regardless of their belief -- would classify as "wrong"?

Question

As evidenced so far this morning, there are widely varied opinions as to what is right or wrong, and there are those who don't believe those terms even exist.

Is there anything that you believe most people, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, background, or belief would classify as wrong? As evidenced by my previous question (linked below), as well as answers to questions by Espresso Kid, some do not believe murder or rape are wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuYXa1mWD_QuCmBrkN6t.qXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071019042510AASqrwp

Answer 1

There are certainly common themes due to the commonality of human nature, but no, I would say that there would always be a few people who would say that even the most horrific acts or events were perfectly OK.

Answer 2

Hey, I was about to say "No, there can not be an act or event that ALL people - regardless of their belief - would unanimously classify as 'wrong'. Simply because of the DIFFERENT beliefs, values, and ideologies of people. What would be considered as good by one side would always be condemned as wrong or evil by those belong to the other side of the political, moral or religious divide."

But as I thought about it, I think there COULD be such an event or act. I'm basing it on the principle of SELF-PRESERVATION.

If the act or event would lead to UNIVERSAL DESTRUCTION resulting in the death of mankind and the destruction of the earth, I think EVERYONE will agree that THAT is wrong.

Just an example: look at the suicide bombers. That's an extreme case where the bomber inflicts as much harm on his targets even if his act includes his own death. Such an act will be condemned by most people, but not by the members of the group that the bomber belongs to. So it's still NOT unanimously regarded as wrong. But let's say hypothetically the bomber possesses a weapon so STRONG - say, a biological weapon involving germs that have been genetically modified to become so DEADLY and a million times more CONTAGIOUS than any other germ, that it will eventually infect and kill EVERYONE including the bomber and his entire group. I don't think they will use that weapon because it will include THEM among the victims. It will mean not only the end of their enemies but of themselves as well.

Using it would be an event or act that all people - regardless of belief - would classify as WRONG.

Answer 3

Causing harm to others for no reason is wrong. But what does that mean? What is a reason? Is justice a reason? What about revenge? What is the difference?

Is an act of extreme evil - say, the rape of a child - ever justifiable? What if the child's father knows where a nuke is about to go off? What if, by irreparably harming that child, you could save the lives of a million people? Would it be right?

Conversely, would NOT harming the child be right if it causes the deaths of a million people? Would allowing those people to die for your moral standard be the right thing to do? Maybe... but I honestly don't know.

This is what keeps food on the table of ethicists the world over!

Edit: Deke, it is WAY too damned early to make me think this heard. I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee! I think everyone can agree that THAT, at least, is just plain wrong! ;-)

Answer 4

No, it relatively is no longer a faith, it relatively is a political ideology and constructive a cultural action. a faith has a mythology and rites, many times. Many progressives are atheists. Many encompass any faith that isn't their very own, is astounding, or it relatively is new. Are Progressivists innovative on the grounds that the they say they're? now no longer constantly. they're like the intense-high quality and efficient oz. do no longer seem interior the back of the curtain, in view that they do no longer seem to be what they take place to be. they're reacting emotionally to concerns that require concept. they're fantastically judgmental, pointing their self righteous finger at each and every guy or woman who dares to disagree with them and calling them racist, sexist, homophobic, and a large number of others.

Answer 5

Why would you want to classify something as 'wrong'? If you start there you could get to what is considered wrong and by whom.

On your friend - It is easy to say that rape and murder is not wrong when it happens to somebody else. It's not sociopathic behaviour, rather apathy (not being able to relate anothers emotion to yourself), naivete (lack of experience) or simply narcissism (which can be confused with indivudualism).

Answer 6

I can't extend agreement to Espresso Kid's argument as applies to murder, since that is making that decision for someone else. Suicide? Sure--decide what life means, and it is yours to end if you see fit. But to make that choice for someone else is wrong. Same with rape, abuse, etc.

When we do something to harm ourselves, that is a choice, and while it may limit our possibilities, it could be construed as value neutral. However, when our actions limit the free choice of others or cause them physical harm, that is where we have overstepped our authority; and that is wrong.

Answer 7

first thing i spot in your wrongness is already presuming about a other person while not even know him/her....

it's called first impression if you talk to a person on the street and he wears a baseball bat you got a impression about this person other while the same person was wearing anything expect the baseball bat, your impression while have been other..

also understand media never fully tells the story about what happened only what taken place witch brings a wrong conclusion

Answer 8

That's a tough one. I think most people ("most" being defined as "more than half") believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center was wrong. That having been said, I am aware that it wouldn't be difficult to find someone to disagree with that assessment. Still, the criterion was "most".

Answer 9

In principle there is no "right" or "wrong", however to be able to function in a society there has to be certain standards layed out. Not because it makes the actions more "right" or "wrong", but simply because it's more practical and constructive - such as murder, rape, paedophelia, is not constructive in a society.

Answer 10

I think raping a baby's eye sockets would always be wrong in any culture.
Ultimately it's up to those in power to enforce their idea of what is right and wrong. I would like to enforce my standards and so would others. It's a Darwinian struggle of ideas.