This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Physical Law vs. Moral Law

First let me begin with saying that knowledge of basic good & evil is within our nature, you do not have to prove or teach someone that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, or stealing is wrong etc.

the rational conclusion to the above should be that a good/moral person should be rewarded, bad/immoral person should be punished. but we do not see that happening in this world, not always at least..

while the physical law in this world is complete, a person who consumes poision will die, a person who jumps off a cliff is likely to get injured or die, etc.

on the other hand, a person lies and nothing happens to his tongue, not even a scratch. a person eats off deceiving people and nothing happens to his stomach, a person lives off corruption and is more likely to get richer and richer!!

the rational conclusion to the above is that something is missing, something is not right in this world, one might say, something is incomplete..even if someone is punished for his crime in this world, it is not always equal to the crime itself, let me give the example of probably the most hated personality ever, hitler...even if he was caught and tortured to death, would that compensate or equal what he has done, 100s of thousands dying because of him, and 100s of thousands losing their loved ones because of him, you get the picture...

therefore, there has to be another life where everyone will get their due according to the moral law which is incomplete in this world.

i would love to have a healthy discussion on this matter, if you have the decency to discuss the topic, please do so, if you have to bring in other irrelevant things and start accusing, and then derailing the thread, please keep it to yourself...

Reply 1

Oivil

good & evil aren't firm measurements with which you can really work scientifically, not even philosophically.

Reply 2

Bobifier

13

So basically you resent that these people are cleverer than you and have to rationalise to yourself that they will suffer for it at a later date so as to feel good about being completely useless?

Reply 3

saalih

OP

4

Bobifier

So basically you resent that these people are cleverer than you and have to rationalise to yourself that they will suffer for it at a later date so as to feel good about being completely useless?

now how did you reach such a conclusion?

does cleverer mean able to cheat his way and trick people to get more money?

Reply 4

Kolya

17

saalih

First let me begin with saying that knowledge of basic good & evil is within our nature, you do not have to prove or teach someone that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, or stealing is wrong etc.

the rational conclusion to the above should be that a good/moral person should be rewarded, bad/immoral person should be punished. but we do not see that happening in this world, not always at least..

That conclusion doesn't follow. That we have some basic sense of 'right' or 'wrong' because of our evolutionary heritage says nothing about how we ought to treat those who correspond to our innate sense of 'right' or 'wrong'. You're invalidly inferring an ought from an is.

Unfortunately that beginning mistake makes the rest of your post pretty much irrelevant.

Reply 5

Bobifier

13

saalih

now how did you reach such a conclusion?

does cleverer mean able to cheat his way and trick people to get more money?

Yes. You're clearly too much of a loser to be able to pull it off.

Reply 6

saalih

OP

4

Kolya

That conclusion doesn't follow. That we have some basic sense of 'right' or 'wrong' because of our evolutionary heritage says nothing about how we ought to treat those who correspond to our innate sense of 'right' or 'wrong'. You're invalidly inferring an ought from an is.

Unfortunately that beginning mistake makes the rest of your post pretty much irrelevant.

it is only natural that when we know right & wrong we expect right to be rewarded & wrong to be punished.....i dont see anything wrong with that....

even if you exclude the beginning part, the rest of the post should make clear sense...

Reply 7

alix.alicis

7

read the antigone by sophocles, you'll find some good answers in there

Reply 8

S-man10

18

saalih

it is only natural that when we know right & wrong we expect right to be rewarded & wrong to be punished.....i dont see anything wrong with that....

even if you exclude the beginning part, the rest of the post should make clear sense...

He does have a point, the conclusion doesn't really follow it seems.

On another note, how do you know when something is either right or wrong?

Reply 9

halfoflessthan50p

12

saalih

First let me begin with saying that knowledge of basic good & evil is within our nature, you do not have to prove or teach someone that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, or stealing is wrong etc.

Most contemporary philosophers, scientists and psychologists would disagree with this.

Reply 10

saalih

OP

4

S-man10

how do you know when something is either right or wrong?

you tell me!!

does anyone need to prove/teach someone that lying is wrong? doesnt the person know it even if he chooses to do so...?

Reply 11

saalih

OP

4

halfoflessthan50p

Most contemporary philosophers, scientists and psychologists would disagree with this.

what abou thte other points raised.......?

Reply 12

Folderol

2

saalih

First let me begin with saying that knowledge of basic good & evil is within our nature, you do not have to prove or teach someone that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, or stealing is wrong etc.

the rational conclusion to the above should be that a good/moral person should be rewarded, bad/immoral person should be punished. but we do not see that happening in this world, not always at least..

Stopped reading here. This doesn't follow at all. Your first premise can even be rejected. History is a testament to that. In the second place even if we did have ingrained and innate right and wrong, it wouldn't follow that we respond to them. You've just landed yourself in the naturalistic fallacy.

Reply 13

S-man10

18

saalih

you tell me!!

does anyone need to prove/teach someone that lying is wrong? doesnt the person know it even if he chooses to do so...?

Is lying really wrong? Can you answer this?

On the other hand, history is a testament. Right and wrong is never natural.

Reply 14

Oivil

would it be evil/wrong to lie to protect the own family from so/sth.? If you say no, you know that you can't generalise. and that every action is evaluated differently from every point of view.

Reply 15

saalih

OP

4

Folderol

Stopped reading here. This doesn't follow at all. Your first premise can even be rejected. History is a testament to that. In the second place even if we did have ingrained and innate right and wrong, it wouldn't follow that we respond to them. You've just landed yourself in the naturalistic fallacy.

it is not a 20 page article i wrote....

if you finish the post you will see some interesting points, the main argument of the post i sin the other part..
physical vs. moral law

Reply 16

CrookedLegs

2

saalih

therefore, there has to be another life where everyone will get their due according to the moral law which is incomplete in this world.

i would love to have a healthy discussion on this matter, if you have the decency to discuss the topic, please do so, if you have to bring in other irrelevant things and start accusing, and then derailing the thread, please keep it to yourself...

Not at all, there doesn't have to be anything, could life not just be life and everything it entails just happens and not for any particular reason?

Reply 17

Bezzler

1

Firstly, what is "moral law"? I didn't think there were many moral absolutists around these days. Surely morality is flexible depending on the situation - it's wrong to lie unless x, it's wrong to kill unless it would prevent more deaths, etc.

Secondly, physical laws exist independent of humanity. Even if humans weren't here, gravity would still take effect, there would still be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, etc. Morality is an entirely human construct - any knowledge we have of what is good and what is bad is based in our evolutionary heritage, not in independent facts. Moral law does not exist in its own right, it is a human construct. There is no reason to assume the universe should behave according to it. Your conclusions do not follow on from your premises at all.

Reply 18

MJlover

21

Bobifier

So basically you resent that these people are cleverer than you and have to rationalise to yourself that they will suffer for it at a later date so as to feel good about being completely useless?

Nah, he is not resenting that the law is not good enough to catch up with sly individulas. and by saying 'cleverer' you are assuming that he also wants to participate in their actions and is jealous, which I never got a feeling of in his post.