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.

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???

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

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

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

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 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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Agrias

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.

I agree nothing happens by accident as science tells us. Why does it have to be god that created what is now? As an atheist i have to prove nothing since i believe in nothing. you believing in whatever you believe has to show me prove of what you believe. Is the biggest reason for your intellect your GPA,well any moron can do that with hard work. Intellect is not define by the amount of work you do but your ability to think. And the way you debate shows you are a moron.

Quote:

Read philosophy: you will realize how mundane you are.

I agree there are no original ideas only modifications. The better way i should have done it is a theory. THe only reason i called it my theory is because i haden't read it before and it came from my thoughts.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by coeccias

In my readings of cultural relativism, I have felt that the arguments in favor of it are not as compelling as those against it. I think if you take a closer look at the belief/knowledge distinction, you will come to a similar conclusion.

Could you tell me the belief/knowledge distinction so that i may be able to know if it's correct.

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

Quote:

Why is it that 'I believe that P', where P is any proposition, is not equal to 'I know that P'? One can claim belief in P whether P is true or false. One cannot claim knowledge of P unless P is true. In the case where the majority of a culture/society believes that P, they are not entitled to make a claim of knowledge regarding P no matter how many people are on their side.

People believe it they can claim it to be true or false, but when shown knowledge it no longer becomes an opinion or ethical issue, but it becomes a fact. my theory does not aplly to facts if you read my first post.

Quote:

Moral Relativity does not preclude an objective moral 'truth', at least it doesn't always. It is a theory which runs on the basis that since we don't know what the objective moral truth is (hence objectivists haven't proved themselves correct either), that we can't really know which culture/belief system etc. is correct. Since it cannot be measured against a known truth, it's something that must remain inconclusive.

My theory only aplies within a society. A society cannot judge another society. So what may be true in one society it's not true in another.

Quote:

It's often boiled down into the terms you put forth, but those neglect to include the significant points about the possibility of one 'true' moral, just that it's unknown and therefore not assumed to be so. Also a popular way to attack the theory is to cite examples which have known truths (world is flat etc.) which is a flawed comparison from the start.

As i previously stated it doesn't apply to facts since their's no need to prove them right or wrong since their facts.

Quote:

But yeah, beliefs do not equal knowledge. Knowledge is true (until a time when it is revealed to have been false). You can believe anything (See faith), but that does not in itself make it true, only allows you to convince yourself of it's validity. If you are in a group-think situation as the OP's theory presents, then their beliefs will allow them to convince themselves that they 'know' a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, they may be correct, they may be incorrect. Who's to say?

As i keep saying this KNOWLEDGE IS FACTS.Believes are the ones that can be proven right or wrong, who's to say if their correct or not; society

Quote:

Imagine a rational society. If your view is correct, everyone would adhere to the common wisdom. Except if the tilt is pretty even (51/49), which would cause people to be iffy until some random event tilted the odds one way. So under your view, a rational society will eventually never, ever be able to change it's opinions about anything. (If anyone came up with a new theory it would be instantly quashed by the majority). New facts or information can never inform a people's ethics.

Well, unless foriengers or aliens invaded or something. (And there would have to be enough foriengers become the majority! And, the prevailiing view of ethics would have to be "we should be open to ethics discussions with foriengers").

Retarded example: Say there's an island of people who believe "any foreigners should leave immediately, and commit suicide for defiling our holy ground." Say a few other countries believe in world-wide diplomacy or the scientific value of exploration. The small bands of explorers they send would meet a town of islanders. The islanders convince the foriengers to go commit suicide. So the island is never ever invaded or even properly contacted, unless other countries send HUGE landing parties all at once. As an added bonus, the rest of the world that believes in exploration and diplomacy will continue to send explorer after explorer because they believe in those ideals, even knowing that whoever they send will get killed, because they can't ever un-believe in the value of striving for diplomacy.

No they wouldn't have to adhere to it but they have to accept it.

Retarded example: A man believes murder is right, so he takes it to court. Since the majority believe murder is wrong he obiously losses and has to accept society's views.

I myself don't agree with all of society's views.

Number two: same reply as above. The kid doesn't have to follow the majority.As to your history comment. As history has told us not everybody followed society. Many belives where brought on by one man who thought diffrently than the society, but he convinse people thus changing the popular believe.

Number three: same answer as above. Why put numbers if their all the same concept.

Quote:

A good theory of philosophy should avoid monster-barring. You are supposed to throw as many paradoxes at your theory as you can to see if you can bring it down - that's good philosophy. You can't just will away contradictions for no reason, unforunately.

My reason for weeding out this parodox is because my theory is both right and wrong, but what makes it wrong only makes it wrong for that one case not any others. This parodox get's us nowhere props to whoever gets it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.