my theory

My theory states that the majority of people make what is right and wrong. When it comes to a close range like 49 to 51 that's when it will come down to a personal opinion, and at this point no one can state what is right and wrong. Sometimes it will lead to solving 'this problem' by diffrent means. When i say majority i mean majority in a society. It will only consider worldwide opinion if the 'problem' is of worldwide interest.

What is right and wrong, and what is absolute truth? Many people could consider common sense to be absolute truth, such as it's common sense racism is wrong, but common sense is derived from my theory. The word itself common mening the majority of people. If the majority of people thought kids shouldn't go to school this believe would be common sense. If you take into consideration gallaleo who thought the world was round. He was missing common sense because the majority of the people believe the world was flat this was the common belief then,or we can say it's was common sense. There is one parodox to my theory, but i donth consider this proving my theory wrong. Just cause it's wrong that one single instance does not mean it'a wrong all the time. if you think that parodox proves my theory wrong then try proving common sense is wrong. if you donth believe common sense is absolute truth then tell me what is right and wrong.

My theory does not apply to facts because facts are already proven.My theory apllies to ethics and what is right and wrong disregarding facts such as someone been gay, and the majority believing he is not. at this point it is wrong because the guy has stated he is gay making it a fact.

Any comments or does anybody disagree

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Moving to TQP.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I just play video games.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Is this supposed to be new or original, cause it isn't

yes i just wanted to see if people agreed with it or not and i haven't heard this anywhere else. And the moderators think my post are spammy.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Megalith

I just play video games.

WTH does this have to do with the topic at hand???

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

See, the problem with this is "conscience". Everybody can believe killing is right, but a person's natural conscience will always tell them that it is wrong, until their conscience is desensitized.

Thread closed?

I was speaking idiomatically.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscience

The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.

The urge to prefer right if right at the time is killing is correct. then the majority is correct you see where this is flawed

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Oh, sorry. I should've been clearer in my rebuttal:

You have a theory, I have an exception. I fully understand what you're saying, but I believe it's quite situational. As with all theories, when an exception is provided, the theorist must accomodate for the exception or discard any past conjectures.

"My theory states that the majority of people make what is right and wrong." -you

"The urge to prefer right if right at the time if killing is correct." -also you


See the contradiction here? If your theory cannot explain itself, then change it so that it can. Thanks.

FELIPE NO

Not to mention that when Galileo was around, the world hadn't been flat for a long time.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

People's brains determine right and wrong.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Tanisari, isn't there some sort of quantum thing that says something about things being indeterminate before they are observed? This is way out of my field, so I'm probably wrong, however, it's amusing to think that the world was shapeless before we saw it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Agrias

Oh, sorry. I should've been clearer in my rebuttal:

You have a theory, I have an exception. I fully understand what you're saying, but I believe it's quite situational. As with all theories, when an exception is provided, the theorist must accomodate for the exception or discard any past conjectures.

"My theory states that the majority of people make what is right and wrong." -you

"The urge to prefer right if right at the time if killing is correct." -also you


See the contradiction here? If your theory cannot explain itself, then change it so that it can. Thanks.

Ok then ill change it

Quote:

"The urge to prefer right if right at the time if killing is correct." -also you

to when killing is right

My point still remains if majority think killing is right then they are right.

Quote:

Not to mention that when Galileo was around, the world hadn't been flat for a long time.

galileo was right but that was becuase he was proving it by using facts. My theory revolves only around morals and ethics.

Quote:

People's brains determine right and wrong.

peoples brains are a product of society

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

insertnamehere, I was just wondering, do you have a religion? Or another preference, such as agnosticism, atheism, etc?

It'd be easier to discuss this interesting theory knowing your moral background.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well im atheist but does that really matter

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

peoples brains are a product of society

ROFL.

Hahahaha, holy shit. I have not laughed this hard in quite some time. What you're asking is about as logical as asking "What is the meaning of life?" and then having hundreds of people spring out of nowhere with their beliefs and understandings of what life is. Whether or not people all agree on something is irrelevant, because usually difficult situations can't always be defined through a popularity vote.

Society has nothing to do with this. If people can't make up their own mind on decisions and matters for themselves, then there's something wrong. Sometimes it's better not to resolve an opinion on a bigger issue, if the majority is leaning in favor of one side. It just creates problems.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Elixir

Society has nothing to do with this. If people can't make up their own mind on decisions and matters for themselves, then there's something wrong.

So you're saying society doesn't affect your way of thinking or opinions? How's that possible, unless you have lived in a cave in Tibet since your birth?

FELIPE NO

It doesn't affect my way of thinking, no.

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions without the influence of others/society.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

So basically everything you do is pre-determined by your DNA...? Or what?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If a majority opinion defines whether a position is morally correct, then it shouldn’t matter if the ration is 51-49 or 99-1: after all, a small majority is still a majority.

Anyway, if you would imagine a society of 10 people, where 8 are cannibals, they would clearly be able to take advantage of this to the detriment of the minority. Does this necessarily say that the concept of “cannibalism” is right? All you can say is that it’s right for that society. However, your theory doesn’t seem to allow you to say what YOU yourself think on not just this issue, but all issues. Clearly, if you aren’t able to answer any moral dilemma without first taking a consensus vote, you won’t be able to take a stand on any position.

HOWEVER. I bet you actually do know that actions like like stealing, crime, torture etc are not socially acceptable behaviour. At the very least, you’d have some idea, and I’m sure you didn’t go and survey all the people in your neighbourhood to find out before deciding on a position. The point I’m getting at is that you actually form your own consensus on what is right and wrong; this is all done prior to any such 50-50 close call. Essentially, even if you did go ask everyone, someone had to be have been the FIRST to make a choice whether something is right or wrong –and that first person can’t rely on any past data/statistics.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

Well im atheist but does that really matter

I can't argue with you anymore, on the basis that you are a fool.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

peoples brains are a product of society

They have a term for people who are grossly like that. It's called being a tool.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Elixir

It doesn't affect my way of thinking, no.

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions without the influence of others/society.

Lies.

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions that they believe are their own *despite* the influence of others. While knowing fullwell that they cannot be entirely unaffected.

Originally Posted by Agrias

I can't argue with you anymore, on the basis that you are a fool.

What happened to it being easier to discuss the subject after knowing the poster's religious beliefs? Seems it gave you just the excuse you needed to dismiss them out of hand and avoid the subject. Heathen or no.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Elixir

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions without the influence of others/society.

The Key word is can. Many people are just swayed by society though. Heck, you're told how to feel by your parents when you were a little kid.

The conclusions you're thinking now could be the product of society.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Elixir

ROFL.

Hahahaha, holy shit. I have not laughed this hard in quite some time. What you're asking is about as logical as asking "What is the meaning of life?" and then having hundreds of people spring out of nowhere with their beliefs and understandings of what life is. Whether or not people all agree on something is irrelevant, because usually difficult situations can't always be defined through a popularity vote.

Society has nothing to do with this. If people can't make up their own mind on decisions and matters for themselves, then there's something wrong. Sometimes it's better not to resolve an opinion on a bigger issue, if the majority is leaning in favor of one side. It just creates problems.

Society has everything to do with it. Your telling me that your parents didn't influence you to be who you are now. You can't tell me that your parent's weren't influence by society and are part of society. Put two together and you are a product of society.

Quote:

If a majority opinion defines whether a position is morally correct, then it shouldn’t matter if the ration is 51-49 or 99-1: after all, a small majority is still a majority.

Anyway, if you would imagine a society of 10 people, where 8 are cannibals, they would clearly be able to take advantage of this to the detriment of the minority. Does this necessarily say that the concept of “cannibalism” is right? All you can say is that it’s right for that society. However, your theory doesn’t seem to allow you to say what YOU yourself think on not just this issue, but all issues. Clearly, if you aren’t able to answer any moral dilemma without first taking a consensus vote, you won’t be able to take a stand on any position.

HOWEVER. I bet you actually do know that actions like like stealing, crime, torture etc are not socially acceptable behaviour. At the very least, you’d have some idea, and I’m sure you didn’t go and survey all the people in your neighbourhood to find out before deciding on a position. The point I’m getting at is that you actually form your own consensus on what is right and wrong; this is all done prior to any such 50-50 close call. Essentially, even if you did go ask everyone, someone had to be have been the FIRST to make a choice whether something is right or wrong –and that first person can’t rely on any past data/statistics.

There is a diffrence between 51-49 and 99-1. Because the 51 doesn't neceesarly overpower the 49, if the 49 where to go to war and kill most of the 51 then they would become more then 49 making them closer to 100 making them right. In the case of the 99 to 1 you can obiously tell that the 99 would overpower the one. Yes i do make my own concensous but a logical one i mean who eould think that stealing is a 50-50. You make your own consensus because society puts that concesenus onto you. The first person didn't make what's right and wrong the first people did. Even if that one person previously stated that it was right he was wrong until more people joined him.

Quote:

I can't argue with you anymore, on the basis that you are a fool.

I can't argue with you either on the basis that you are an idiot.

Quote:

They have a term for people who are grossly like that. It's called being a tool.

And you and i are one.

So basically i do make my own desicion on what's right and wrong, but it doesn't mean that i am correct because i won't be able to beat all those who are opposite of my opinion.

FELIPE NO

Read philosophy: you will realize how mundane you are.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm an idiot? I'm far from an idiot. I have a 4.0 at my university, and teach MCAT classes (read: medical school admission test preparation classes).

My basis on calling you a fool was not one of insult, but of common sense, to better you as a person. Look at the world around you, it did not happen by accident. Nothing happens by accident, and even if it does, it's someone's accident. That is my basis for anti-atheism. Prove me wrong.

Double Post:
Also, I will cease to post in this thread, as it is a waste of time to argue with fools.

Later.

Jam it back in, in the dark.