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

Moving to TQP.

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

I just play video games.

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???

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?

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

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.

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

People's brains determine right and wrong.

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.

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

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.

Well im atheist but does that really matter

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.