What is the basis of right and wrong?

[kanyeeezy]

if you wouldn't do it in from of your mom, don't do it.

 

[coolnificent]

Go watch this

 

[dublbagn]

well, you are taught what is right and wrong......look at indigenous tribes that still fight and kill each other over livestock.. Some countries its OK tomarry your cousin.... right and wrong are ideas that are all subjective to each person.....

religion on the other hand scares people into abiding by a certain set of rules out of fear of future repercussions...

so to answer OP's question, the "box person" would not know what he was seeing, more than likely would be scared by the loud noise the gun wouldmake...

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by YaBoyDiddy

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by infamousod



it's about that golden rule

perhaps I should clarify since everyone skipped over my post

golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them to do unto you'

That means nothing to somebody that's never had interaction with the human race. No interaction means no emotions. You don't know what u want done to you - somebody smacks u in the face, 15 years in this bubble, you're gonna think that's appropriate interaction

. This person would have to learn from these funny feelings he's having (emotions), learn from his pain receptors (ouch, I'm not doing that again), and what all that feels like. He would have to learn to pick up on the facial expressions of others: Smile/Grin = content, happy; Frown = sad, upset, angry; Frown with tears = serious distress. I don't think it would take long to learn right from wrong.


This topic is like is the show "Kyle XY": this alien/ test tube hybrid has to learn to fit in with the world. He slowly had to learn what all these emotions and facial expressions from others meant. And when he felt some these emotions, all he knew was he felt kinda funny, he didn't know what these emotions meant. He had to learn all of that.

I completely disagree.

Yes, most morals are taught, except that which you can apply to yourself.

If you see extreme pain, you will feel remorse for that person because you can place yourself in that situation and say "i would not want that to happento me." That pain is the effect and the cause is the gunshot. The man holding the gun shot him, and is therefore responsible. Then you look at hisreasons, objectively. It's not all just what you are taught as morals, much of it is simply logic.

A man with no societal morals would be the best judge in the world, assuming he is objective and logical.

 

[ac4three]

You're taking a philosophy class aren't you...

 

[the natural mystic]

Originally Posted by Hiram408

Originally Posted by de PHX Jose

take a look at smoking weed. Rastas look at it as MANDATORY, while people think it's bad just because it's illegal

Rastas are obligated to smoke weed.

I dont think the box man would see it as wrong. Our conception of right and wrong is socially constructed. I believe we are a blank slate and simply learn, through observations and experience, what's socially accepted.

You don't have to smoke weed to be a Rasta.

 

[sadikmac]

I've always thought about this morality concept and I'm actually planning to use my future offspring as an experiment for it and observe human natureat its finest.

I'm planning to not teach my kid anything, not even speak or walk and to observe him or her transcend from the need to do and know worldly things.

Though I'm guessing also that I would go against certain human rights violation laws since our society has deemed such an experiment as unacceptable. Manypeople fail to understand that these kinds of talks are merely speculations until an experiment such as what I'm planning is undertaken.

On a more mundane level, people would see me, the father as insane, twisted, among other things just because it went against what billions of other people havebeen used to for so many years.

 

[yaboydiddy]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by YaBoyDiddy

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by infamousod



it's about that golden rule

perhaps I should clarify since everyone skipped over my post

golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them to do unto you'

That means nothing to somebody that's never had interaction with the human race. No interaction means no emotions. You don't know what u want done to you - somebody smacks u in the face, 15 years in this bubble, you're gonna think that's appropriate interaction

. This person would have to learn from these funny feelings he's having (emotions), learn from his pain receptors (ouch, I'm not doing that again), and what all that feels like. He would have to learn to pick up on the facial expressions of others: Smile/Grin = content, happy; Frown = sad, upset, angry; Frown with tears = serious distress. I don't think it would take long to learn right from wrong.


This topic is like is the show "Kyle XY": this alien/ test tube hybrid has to learn to fit in with the world. He slowly had to learn what all these emotions and facial expressions from others meant. And when he felt some these emotions, all he knew was he felt kinda funny, he didn't know what these emotions meant. He had to learn all of that.

I completely disagree.

Yes, most morals are taught, except that which you can apply to yourself.

If you see extreme pain, you will feel remorse for that person because you can place yourself in that situation and say "i would not want that to happen to me." That pain is the effect and the cause is the gunshot. The man holding the gun shot him, and is therefore responsible. Then you look at his reasons, objectively. It's not all just what you are taught as morals, much of it is simply logic.

A man with no societal morals would be the best judge in the world, assuming he is objective and logical.

You fresh out the box, how do u know what pain is?

 

[sighfur]

you would immediately feel fear once you hear a gun shot, the loud sound would scare anyone, wether it be a baby, an oblivious person, an animal. Thus knowingsomething is wrong upon hearing a gun shot. Animals don't know what a gun is, but let a shot off around one, and i bet they scatter in fear. its INSTINCT.Emotion is channeled through vibrations, if you never seen someone cry before, i bet you'd know they are sad or in distress. We are Animals, just like yourdog knows something is wrong when you cry.. this person in a box would know something is wrong from a gunshot, the agony, instant life-loss, or gushing blood,just as an oblivious animal would know. Morals reflect on lighter things, not life and death, thats natural instinct.

 

[upandcoming32]

Originally Posted by daemacho

Morally wrong.. No but his instincts and intelligence will tell him what has happened was not right.

really?

i would have to disagree.
the person living in a box may show no expression at all, and may have no intelligence because intelligence is obtained by being taught and it is LEARNED asstated. The person would not KNOW it is wrong,but possibly may have a feeling (instinct) inside of him/her which will tell them that the action was wrong.

as to what is right and what is wrong, that is based on society.....an individual may have an opinion that something is right,whereas his whole community maydeem it as wrong. The beliefs of the society would be accepted whereas the boy would be looked down upon.. every society has different rules,which GOVERNS thatsociety. but every society is different. so what is right, and what is wrong? that is for you to ask yourself.

 

[hiram408]

Originally Posted by The Natural Mystic

Originally Posted by Hiram408

Originally Posted by de PHX Jose

take a look at smoking weed. Rastas look at it as MANDATORY, while people think it's bad just because it's illegal

Rastas are obligated to smoke weed.

I dont think the box man would see it as wrong. Our conception of right and wrong is socially constructed. I believe we are a blank slate and simply learn, through observations and experience, what's socially accepted.

You don't have to smoke weed to be a Rasta.

oops i omitted the NOT

 

[iblink]

Some of you saying Law, religion, etc, are obviously missing the jist of the question.

The person had no human interaction prior to witnessing the murder. Ever

Considering that his perception is not acted upon by prior knowledge of what man deems as right or wrong, how is it that he is to know that it is indeed wrong?

The answer is simple: He wouldn't know that what he just saw was considered wrong.

The basis of right and wrong is human perception. Everything man accepts as truth is based upon human perception. Everything is nothing and nothing iseverything.

 

[jakecuevas]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Morality is LEARNED.....through family, parent's, teachers, law, religion etc

 

[awwsome]

Originally Posted by iBlink

The basis of right and wrong is human perception. Everything man accepts as truth is based upon human perception. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.

 

[lunchroomclassic]

The only thing that person would know is the inside of the box.

There would be no reaction to the murder because the person does not know murder.

 

[slamcity]

I think the person would not react.
I feel like everything that exists today is culturally constructed; race, culture, differences.
So this person fresh out the box, unexposed to culture, would have no method of processing this murder and formulating responsive thoughts/emotions.

 

[iblink]

Originally Posted by awwsome

Originally Posted by iBlink

The basis of right and wrong is human perception. Everything man accepts as truth is based upon human perception. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.

Word.

 

[infamousod]

a person coming out of a box and society's basis for morals/laws are really very different.

Originally Posted by lunchroomclassic

The only thing that person would know is the inside of the box.

There would be no reaction to the murder because the person does not know murder.

hmm?

 

[yaboydiddy]

^ Any kid by the age 4 has a concept of life and death or has heard the word. I'm sure she has friends, and she watches endless hours of TV. Cartoonsdiscuss everything

. Were talking about somebody with 0 contact withthe outside world.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by YaBoyDiddy

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by YaBoyDiddy

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by infamousod



it's about that golden rule

perhaps I should clarify since everyone skipped over my post

golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them to do unto you'

That means nothing to somebody that's never had interaction with the human race. No interaction means no emotions. You don't know what u want done to you - somebody smacks u in the face, 15 years in this bubble, you're gonna think that's appropriate interaction

. This person would have to learn from these funny feelings he's having (emotions), learn from his pain receptors (ouch, I'm not doing that again), and what all that feels like. He would have to learn to pick up on the facial expressions of others: Smile/Grin = content, happy; Frown = sad, upset, angry; Frown with tears = serious distress. I don't think it would take long to learn right from wrong.


This topic is like is the show "Kyle XY": this alien/ test tube hybrid has to learn to fit in with the world. He slowly had to learn what all these emotions and facial expressions from others meant. And when he felt some these emotions, all he knew was he felt kinda funny, he didn't know what these emotions meant. He had to learn all of that.

I completely disagree.

Yes, most morals are taught, except that which you can apply to yourself.

If you see extreme pain, you will feel remorse for that person because you can place yourself in that situation and say "i would not want that to happen to me." That pain is the effect and the cause is the gunshot. The man holding the gun shot him, and is therefore responsible. Then you look at his reasons, objectively. It's not all just what you are taught as morals, much of it is simply logic.

A man with no societal morals would be the best judge in the world, assuming he is objective and logical.

You fresh out the box, how do u know what pain is?

The concept of the "box" isn't in a literal sense. It's that he hasn't been taught anything. Pain is a sensation oneexperiences, regardless of what they are taught.

Your nerves respond to specific pressures sending messages back to your brain, regardless of what you are taught.

It doesn't matter if he can accurately perceive the emotions expressed by the person getting shot. As long as he can understand that a bullet goingthrough a person is painful, he'll be able to understand the situation.

 

[yep617]

Originally Posted by 80JerryRice80


Personally, I believe that morality is partially rooted in nature & partially rooted in nurture.

i believe this as well. When people hear nature v. nurture, many want to choose one or the other when, in my opinion it seems more logical thatboth play a great part in who we are.