If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What makes an action right or wrong?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am not taking a personal view here, or trying to be subversive, just setting out the issue to debate. Why is it that some actions are considered acceptable while others are considered wrong? And some actions are considered right by some and wrong by others, e.g. taking cocaine.
0
Comments
Does it hurt someone else is my answer. If it doesn't, it's fine. If it does, it's wrong. Oh, and only physical harm counts.
What usually happens is that this line gets blurred by the likelihood of something happening to hurt someone by something that is in itself harmless. i.e. taking drugs harms no-one else but the user, unless they start behaving irrationally and then put others safety at risk, or shooting a gun in all directions without ever hitting anyone.
I think the phrase is "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose."
That was my answer - it still is. If you think something different by all means post away, but please don't correct my opinions. Ta.
Just because the law says something wrong doesnt make it wrong as laws come and go, change and are fluid. for instance, Crucifixtions were in no way wrong in ancient rome, they were a tried and tested method of punishment for crimes, but today they are barbaric.
although in the case of drug taking, it is still wrong because, harming ones self with toxins is just as bad as harming some one else. it is one thing to take drugs to remove pain, but for recreational use its just retarded.
You've never had a drink or a smoke?
I think the above statement is wrong. Factually wrong too actually... harming oneself is often done. It's an escape for some. A fun thing for others. An eligtening journey too. If we didn't have drugs, I doubt we would have such things as Alice in Wonderland. Fear and Loathing... the list could go on.
Right and wrong though. Depends. Killing is wrong... sometimes. Stealing is wrong... sometimes. But, one thing that is always wrong is... parking just round a blind corner. God, tossers.
Are you in favour of banning alcohol?
all life is precious right? and although i am in favour of euthanasia for the long term suffers or perminantly inflicted, i dont think long term self harm, which is what drugs do can be argued in favour of.
(also alcohol in excess can be lethal, look at the woeful performances of stage and film Laurence olivier did coz he was constantly drunk or drinking, they were dreadful compared to when he was in his prime and controlling his drinking intake)
Cocaine, LSD and Ecstesy can all kill, hence they are infact dangerous rather then "not so dangerous"
So can drinking mate. So can gonig out and walking down the pavement, ffs.
More people die of alcohol poisoning each year, or of donig something daft drunk.
As for the cannabis thing - No, shit UK pot means you just have to smoke more to get as high - doing more damage to your lungs.
You, do not know the risks. I agree, cocaine and LSD are dangerous. But so is alcohol. And certainly is tobacco!
This is true and the accepted notions of right and wrong are dictated by the majority or at least the ruling power.
Once in uni we actually disproved the notion of objectivity as even a photograph has subjectiveness to it.
I'd suggest you do some in-depth research because you seem to be just repeating the usual nonsense screamed by the tabloid press.
But, keeping in mind what Jim has said and not wanting to sidetrack the thread...
I believe what's right or wrong largely depends on a moral compass. However there are some people who are clearly wrong even their moral compass told them otherwise, so I guess it's a combination of what the law, social consensus and common sense dictates- though any of those can occasionally be wrong.
A very subjective thing indeed.
i have been a recreational drug user for almost 40 years.
fit as a butchers dog.
big fat bank balance.
run business.
employ people.
have a great family.
rarely get even a cold.
funny how queen victoria managed to reign for so long whilst using opium and cannabis ...
the list could go on and on and on but ...jim v will tell me off so i'll shut up.
It's concerning that people can actually believe that shit.
I think Klintock hit the nail on the head, the only thing where there's right or wrong is where physical harm is involved, for example, it is wrong for a 20 stone man to sit on a 6 month old baby.
You have as much liberty as is allowed until you use your own liberty to interfere with someone elses liberty.
So... Incest is OK if both parties agree to it?
A man indulging in Beastiality is Ok as long as it is his animal?
A person looking at fake pictues of naked children is ok, because they are not real and a child was in no way harmed?
Gotta define liberty though.
How about - 100% control of your life and property 100% of the time, and 0% control of other peoples life and property.
Yup.
Providing the animal consents, sure, why not?
Looks like it.
The reason I choose physical harm as the top priority is that after we go beyond the realm of what we can prove we are into the area of using force on people merely to impose our prejudices/opinions on them. (Because there are plenty of idiots who are so far removed from taking responsibility for their own feelings and actions who think that words cause pain or suffering in themselves.)
To take the classic "shooting a gun randomly" example. I take a gun and fire it randomly in all directions. Some people would want to make this a crime in itself, with no need for anyone to be harmed, which is ridiculous. I would let anyone who wanted to do this be allowed, with the proviso that if they did hurt anyone tonight they would be hung in the morning.
If someone becomes pregant from shagging their brother the child has a greater chance of infirmities and therefore is harmed.
Only if your dog gives consent.
If they're fake it should be legal (and I think is). OK personally I would find it a bit sick, but then what I find odious and distasteful shouldn't be used to decide what is legal or illegal.
An employer who exploits workers and pays them a pittance as the company make healthy profits and he pays himself a small fortune is wrong.
A selfish person, unwilling to help others is wrong.
A person who attempts to dictate how others live their lives and who judge them on a set of superstitions based on a 2,000 year old story book is wrong.
Anyone who thinks animals "belong to man" to kill for recreation or that the ecosystem is there to be pillaged without any regard for its balance is wrong.
And furthermore, I suspect the immense majority of people indulging in the above (except, perhaps, the religious lot) know deep down they're wrong. They just don't want to admit it and try to block such thoughts out of their minds with pre-conceived excuses.
There is nothing 'deeper' and more important to human happiness than the liberty of the individual.
All else is secondary, including the typical socialist workers/employers stuff you mentioned.
Then why in the most free society in the world, are their so many problems?
Freedom is fine. Until a problem occurs, then so many people shout "What is the government going to do?" and look for authority and order. And exploitation.
Some system or order is required in life.