Questioning right and wrong

[Anopsology]

I have this fear in my mind that Im doing something wrong or im not doing the right things. Is it okay for me to do what I want and travel the world and go on adventures with my friends? I want to pursue my passions but I have this fear that these passions are just spoiled American things. I could just as easily be sitting under a tree meditating in Tibet my whole life. Why does my mind tell me to go fishing with my friends, travel and see places, go skateboarding and do all these fun leisurely things. Should I be pursuing all these hobbies and passions? I just question everything so much. Is there any famous books on what to do in life from philosophers? or good books in general .. I can do anything I want any day of my life and I am just trying to decipher my thoughts.

[Acme]

Nothing wrong in my opinion. Here's something from a famous philosopher to help alleviate your fears.

 

In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell

[Ophiolite]

Rule 1: There are no rules.

Rule 2: See rule 1.

[Phi for All]

I could just as easily be sitting under a tree meditating in Tibet my whole life.

 

I checked with Tibet, and all those positions have been filled. The US could use some adventure-types to keep tourism healthy, though. Lots of travel, sorry.

 

If it's no trouble, could you meditate on the plane?

[Ten oz]

I was in Antigua Guatemala a few months back. I had a great time. One night in particular I had found a bar showing the Seattle vs San Francisco playoff game (football). I drank, I watched, I danced, etc, etc. The next morning I woke up with a bit of a hangover. As I walked the streets looking for a pharmacy I saw lots of locals out hustling about. Young children working. A wave of guilt shot over me. I have had similar moments in Costa Rica, Panama, and Mexico. While I was there to party and do I wish made possible by the chance luck of being born in a healthier country so many people around the world aren't so lucky. I was taking advantage of it to buy cheap drinks. For ever one person on this earth that has the freedom to travel and enjoy hundreds will never know anything but a life of labor and indebtedness.

I can relate to your question. In a world full of so much inequity it is hard to feel comfortable doing as you wish knowing that on some level your exploiting those inequities. I try to stay engaged politically. I vote in ever election from local school boards up to the white house. It is a snails race. Change is long and slow but knowing that I am not just shopping at Walmart while ignoring a political landscape that allowed for things that the Iraq war without consequence helps my feeling of guilt. It also helps me appriciate my time in other countries that much more. So my advice would be to figure out what you believe and support it in your life both politically and in how you live (where you shop, bank, transportation, etc).

[dimreepr]

I have this fear in my mind that Im doing something wrong or im not doing the right things. Is it okay for me to do what I want and travel the world and go on adventures with my friends? I want to pursue my passions but I have this fear that these passions are just spoiled American things. I could just as easily be sitting under a tree meditating in Tibet my whole life. Why does my mind tell me to go fishing with my friends, travel and see places, go skateboarding and do all these fun leisurely things. Should I be pursuing all these hobbies and passions? I just question everything so much. Is there any famous books on what to do in life from philosophers? or good books in general .. I can do anything I want any day of my life and I am just trying to decipher my thoughts.

 

 

 

You don’t need permission to live your life so why seek it?

 

Be wary of conflating fun/happiness with simply being content, don’t forget the only time you can live is NOW, the past has gone and the future may never arrive; so whatever your current emotion, just accept and be content with it. The best life I can imagine is one in which you are content NOW, and you have a lifetime in which each moment of now is one of contentment, regardless of your fleeting emotional state.

 

Don’t forget, though, your choices have consequences and not always good ones, accepting that will go a long way towards emotional stability and a contented life.

 

 

 

 

Edit/ don’t be afraid; be aware and let go the fear.

Edited July 8, 2014 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

IMO inquiry into morality is itself moral. Keep it up.

 

For me, life is about finding activities that are both enjoyable and beneficial to varying degrees. I'm not productive at things I don't enjoy. While I get some degree of enjoyment from productivity itself, it's not much.

Edited July 9, 2014 by MonDie

[cladking]

I believe it is everyone's duty to leave the world a better place. One's happiness should to at least some extent derive from leaving the world better than he found it. This isn't to say one must work or have a career but he should generally leave things better than he found it. The only problem with idleness is that it can degenerate into hedonism which will leave one empty and unhappy given enough time.

 

It requires very little work now days for a person to earn enough to cover what the world loses in supporting him. There's no rational reason people need to put in the long hours most do. But they desire to always have more.

 

Suit yourself but never forget your primary duties or things you consider your duty such as family.

[hoola]

I see the universe as a mathematical object, composed of information. All information must be expressed it seems, and we are doing a small portion of the "work"....resulting from the thrust of the initial conditions...sadly, we seem to be unable (or unaware) to differentiate between logical and illogical information as a basis for the willfull choices of expression, in species wide averaged behaviour..

[Awe]

I have thought about the usefulness of science for a while now and I finally found my answer a couple months back. You must use science to define morality. What i mean by this is incorporating science into your morality is like relying on eyes to understand what's in front of you. For example I'm pretty sure most including yourself would agree that punishing someone for something they did not intentionally do would be morally wrong. If this premise is correct then shouldn't this also apply in other examples? Humans truly have no control over their actions in the sense that nature or our genes determine the way we behave and also including what we know as truth. If I hurt someone because I think what they did was wrong how am I any worse than someone who does volunteer work and helps the poor? We both are led by truth down a path. Even if I am morally wrong how can you blame me for what I have done? It's not like I knew, because if I did I would be forced to change my behavior. So this cycle of revenge we see portrayed in public art like a movie should stay where it belongs in a make believe reality. This is just one example of how science can help us define our morality. Maybe just like me you feel the need to be truly moral.

[Phi for All]

I have thought about the usefulness of science for a while now and I finally found my answer a couple months back. You must use science to define morality. What i mean by this is incorporating science into your morality is like relying on eyes to understand what's in front of you. For example I'm pretty sure most including yourself would agree that punishing someone for something they did not intentionally do would be morally wrong.

People cause unintended harm all the time. "I'm sorry I ran over your child with my car, I did NOT intend to do that! It would be morally wrong to punish me for that, right?"

 

Humans truly have no control over their actions in the sense that nature or our genes determine the way we behave and also including what we know as truth.

 

We may be big bags of chemicals with lots of natural reactions and responses, but our superior intelligence gives us control over our actions to a degree other animals can't touch. You could get caught in a bear trap and figure out five better ways to deal with it than gnawing your foot off.

 

If I hurt someone because I think what they did was wrong how am I any worse than someone who does volunteer work and helps the poor?

 

Well, I'm sure there's more context in your mind to this scenario, but offhand I'd say you'd be wrong to use violence to deal with a wrongdoer in a society. Morally, shouldn't punishment be left to the law? The volunteer is working within an approved system.

 

We both are led by truth down a path.

 

Truth is a subjective concept. "We" can't be led by something that's variable between us.

 

Even if I am morally wrong how can you blame me for what I have done? It's not like I knew, because if I did I would be forced to change my behavior. So this cycle of revenge we see portrayed in public art like a movie should stay where it belongs in a make believe reality. This is just one example of how science can help us define our morality. Maybe just like me you feel the need to be truly moral.

I don't get this part. If you do something your society considers immoral, even if it was unintentional, why do you think you'd be blameless? Can you give an example of a situation like this?

 

I've heard of a case where a guy was caught urinating in public, late at night at a gas station that was closed and the restrooms locked. There was some circumstance in the case (proximity to a school, or other establishment where the public, specifically women, might have been... exposed to the exposure) that prompted local authorities to charge the man with indecent exposure rather than public urination. Besides changing the nature of the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony, indecent exposure is considered a sex crime in many states, requiring registration as a sex offender. Is this the kind of distinction you're making?

 

I also don't understand how you're using science to define your morals. While I agree completely that it's better to be a moral and law-abiding member of your society out of reason and thoughtful consideration, rather than because a god will punish you if you don't, I don't see where you're using science in this manner.

[Awe]

People cause unintended harm all the time. "I'm sorry I ran over your child with my car, I did NOT intend to do that! It would be morally wrong to punish me for that, right?"

 

 

We may be big bags of chemicals with lots of natural reactions and responses, but our superior intelligence gives us control over our actions to a degree other animals can't touch. You could get caught in a bear trap and figure out five better ways to deal with it than gnawing your foot off.

 

 

Well, I'm sure there's more context in your mind to this scenario, but offhand I'd say you'd be wrong to use violence to deal with a wrongdoer in a society. Morally, shouldn't punishment be left to the law? The volunteer is working within an approved system.

 

 

Truth is a subjective concept. "We" can't be led by something that's variable between us.

 

I don't get this part. If you do something your society considers immoral, even if it was unintentional, why do you think you'd be blameless? Can you give an example of a situation like this?

 

I've heard of a case where a guy was caught urinating in public, late at night at a gas station that was closed and the restrooms locked. There was some circumstance in the case (proximity to a school, or other establishment where the public, specifically women, might have been... exposed to the exposure) that prompted local authorities to charge the man with indecent exposure rather than public urination. Besides changing the nature of the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony, indecent exposure is considered a sex crime in many states, requiring registration as a sex offender. Is this the kind of distinction you're making?

 

I also don't understand how you're using science to define your morals. While I agree completely that it's better to be a moral and law-abiding member of your society out of reason and thoughtful consideration, rather than because a god will punish you if you don't, I don't see where you're using science in this manner.

 

What i mean by you cant blame them is that it would make no sense to take your anger out on that person, just as it make no sense to harm someone out of anger or revenge because they didn't know what you know or see things the same way you do. For example a Psychopath may commit terrible crimes but that's only because that is the way he or she is, just as most people don't get revenge upon animals for their lack of understanding we shouldn't get revenge upon another human being. Also this idea that humans somehow know better is non sense. Just as animals are controlled by certain factors so are humans. What I'm trying to say is that our genes, environment and truth

(what we know to be truth which may not be correct so it's essentially what we believe to be true) all determine the way we behave but of course one should be held accountable to their actions in the sense that everyone has to follow the law. However everyone should understand that even though someone commits a crime it's usually because they see no wrong in what they are doing aside from society telling them it's immoral. By immoral I mean society disproves but even so they see what they are doing as moral whether that be because of a chemical imbalance in their brain or their beliefs (not always religion). So how can you wish harm upon someone who doesn't see what you see, someone who doesn't think in the same manner as you or even someone who's biologically different? It all boils down to predetermined sacks of different substances and materials. If anger motivates us to harm someone who intentionally hurt us then by definition the only person you can truly be vengeful toward should be some sort of eternal god.

 

While I do enjoy philosophy I'm making an assumption here and that assumption is that our sense or science allow us to understand the world around us in other words we can achieve truth through the scientific process. Of course I must eventually address this but for the time being I'm putting it aside which is why I call it an assumption. If scientific understanding can help us understand what is and isn't true then we should be using it as a way of defining our morality. This is the reason why I use scientific understanding to define morality. It's better to rely on science then on pure speculation wouldn't you agree?

[dimreepr]

 

What i mean by you cant blame them is that it would make no sense to take your anger out on that person, just as it make no sense to harm someone out of anger or revenge because they didn't know what you know or see things the same way you do. For example a Psychopath may commit terrible crimes but that's only because that is the way he or she is, just as most people don't get revenge upon animals for their lack of understanding we shouldn't get revenge upon another human being. Also this idea that humans somehow know better is non sense. Just as animals are controlled by certain factors so are humans. What I'm trying to say is that our genes, environment and truth

(what we know to be truth which may not be correct so it's essentially what we believe to be true) all determine the way we behave but of course one should be held accountable to their actions in the sense that everyone has to follow the law. However everyone should understand that even though someone commits a crime it's usually because they see no wrong in what they are doing aside from society telling them it's immoral. By immoral I mean society disproves but even so they see what they are doing as moral whether that be because of a chemical imbalance in their brain or their beliefs (not always religion). So how can you wish harm upon someone who doesn't see what you see, someone who doesn't think in the same manner as you or even someone who's biologically different? It all boils down to predetermined sacks of different substances and materials. If anger motivates us to harm someone who intentionally hurt us then by definition the only person you can truly be vengeful toward should be some sort of eternal god.

 

 

A good judicial system isn’t be about revenge, it’s about learning; society learns how to avoid future problems through rehabilitation and limiting the wrongdoer’s ability to commit more of the same until they’ve learned why they shouldn’t.

 

We may be swayed by the particular chemical mix in our system at any one time but that doesn’t make us automatons, we make decisions not reactions;

a bully is still a bully even though he’s been made that way via abuse, one feels sorry for them but one should still stop them bullying.

[Awe]

 

 

A good judicial system isn’t be about revenge, it’s about learning; society learns how to avoid future problems through rehabilitation and limiting the wrongdoer’s ability to commit more of the same until they’ve learned why they shouldn’t.

 

We may be swayed by the particular chemical mix in our system at any one time but that doesn’t make us automatons, we make decisions not reactions;

a bully is still a bully even though he’s been made that way via abuse, one feels sorry for them but one should still stop them bullying.

Well yeah that's obvious. But think about how this affects the way you treat others and how it affects your morality not so much the judicial system.

[dimreepr]

Well yeah that's obvious. But think about how this affects the way you treat others and how it affects your morality not so much the judicial system.

 

 

 

This thread are my thoughts on what you're saying.

[Phi for All]

(what we know to be truth which may not be correct so it's essentially what we believe to be true)

 

This is cognitively dissonant. Why would you call it "truth" if it may not be correct? And if it's not universal, not objective, how can you trust what you believe to be "true"? I think you're confusing the issue here with bad definitions, or definitions that you're stretching to fit the argument, rendering them meaningless. Why do you call it "truth" when it could be different for each person?

[Ten oz]

I have thought about the usefulness of science for a while now and I finally found my answer a couple months back. You must use science to define morality. What i mean by this is incorporating science into your morality is like relying on eyes to understand what's in front of you. For example I'm pretty sure most including yourself would agree that punishing someone for something they did not intentionally do would be morally wrong. If this premise is correct then shouldn't this also apply in other examples? Humans truly have no control over their actions in the sense that nature or our genes determine the way we behave and also including what we know as truth. If I hurt someone because I think what they did was wrong how am I any worse than someone who does volunteer work and helps the poor? We both are led by truth down a path. Even if I am morally wrong how can you blame me for what I have done? It's not like I knew, because if I did I would be forced to change my behavior. So this cycle of revenge we see portrayed in public art like a movie should stay where it belongs in a make believe reality. This is just one example of how science can help us define our morality. Maybe just like me you feel the need to be truly moral.

You are treating humans in realtime the same way we treat all other animals and history as a whole. I think most people will have trouble with this but I agree that it is fair. When looking at the past we seldom make judgements about what people did based on right vs wrong. We don't debate the morality of our ancestors migrating north from Africa and displacing the Neanderthals for example. Just as we don't attach any negative labels to a male Lion who displaces other male Lions. We just consider it natural behavior. Surely the lions or neanderthals being displaced in realtime feel/felt differently.

Only time and the survival of humanity will tell right from wrong. In realtime splitting the atom seemed like a miraculous discovery. If nuclear war extincts us perhaps it will have been the worst thing we humans ever did.

[Awe]

 

This is cognitively dissonant. Why would you call it "truth" if it may not be correct? And if it's not universal, not objective, how can you trust what you believe to be "true"? I think you're confusing the issue here with bad definitions, or definitions that you're stretching to fit the argument, rendering them meaningless. Why do you call it "truth" when it could be different for each person?

I dont like to use the word belief because people usually think I'm speaking of religion only but I see it makes no sense to use truth lol thanks for pointing that out.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

just jumping in here. Truth or what is true is a vocabulary tool used to certify it's accompanying Fact. No accompanying fact, no truth/true. In and of itself it means nothing. Therefore what is true, factually is indeed correct. morality is a play generally staged by society on the members of that society. So right and wrong are actors, neither are valid at all times in all situations, we give it more credit for its acting then what it deserve. Is it right to kill a man who killed a man, or is it wrong to kill a man who killed a man by mistake. Lets take the actors out, what do we have, A man is dead, another man killed him. The dead mans death must be accounted for, that is the determining factor, what measure of accounting is generally left up to a judge.

 

The authors' post doesn't seem to even approach a right or wrong, take the trip with your buddies or forgo the trip and feel unselfish, the former and latter is a decision, if it rise to a right or wrong, then perhaps the facts of who you consider yourself to be is tilted. no disrespect intended.

[Phi for All]

I dont like to use the word belief because people usually think I'm speaking of religion only but I see it makes no sense to use truth lol thanks for pointing that out.

 

It's all belief, it just depends on how you arrive at that belief. Personally, I separate belief into Faith, Hope, and Trust. Faith is belief without reason, based on assuming things you can't possibly know, and it usually involves some pretty active lifestyle choices.

 

Hope is similar, but is usually more passive. I might not follow a specific religion, but I can Hope that somehow consciousness remains after the body dies, without changing my life to hope this.

 

Trust is belief backed up by a preponderance of evidence. When you can verify what you believe, you can Trust it as the best explanation.

 

To me, the biggest difference between them is who you're believing. If you're relying on people's word and opinion, it's probably Faith you're using. If you're using observable reality, it's more likely Trust.

[MonDie]

 

It's all belief, it just depends on how you arrive at that belief. Personally, I separate belief into Faith, Hope, and Trust. Faith is belief without reason, based on assuming things you can't possibly know, and it usually involves some pretty active lifestyle choices.

 

Hope is similar, but is usually more passive. I might not follow a specific religion, but I can Hope that somehow consciousness remains after the body dies, without changing my life to hope this.

 

Trust is belief backed up by a preponderance of evidence. When you can verify what you believe, you can Trust it as the best explanation.

 

To me, the biggest difference between them is who you're believing. If you're relying on people's word and opinion, it's probably Faith you're using. If you're using observable reality, it's more likely Trust.

 

If I had to define types of belief, I would distinguish it's underpinnings (what causes it) from its manifestations (what it causes).

 

Faith - ????? - "active lifestyle choices"

Hope - desire/fear - "passive", "without changing life"

Trust - evidence - ?????

 

Perhaps it's easy to mistake fear and desire for belief. I don't believe that you want to kill me, but I'll still run away if I fear it enough.

[Phi for All]

 

If I had to define types of belief, I would distinguish it's underpinnings (what causes it) from its manifestations (what it causes).

 

This seems like a productive approach.

 

Personally, I think anyone that uses faith (as I've defined it) is not using reason. To believe in something so strongly without anything but gut feelings and peer pressure to support it is not reasonable. And we've all seen how this type of belief is pervasive and persistent, defying all attempts at rational explanation, probably because this faith developed without any kind of rational thought. The less someone knows about what they believe, the less likely they'll be persuaded to un-believe in it. And the more likely they are to make a lot of lifestyle changes (going to church, tithing to support their religion, trips to the Holy Land, evangelizing, etc). I think faith is attractive because it gives many people answers they like and don't have to work very hard for.

 

Hope seems similar to faith, just not as strong, and therefore not likely to cause a lot of assertive lifestyle changes. Hope is probably like fence-sitting; I believe this but it truly could go either way and I wouldn't be surprised. Like, I have a good feeling about winning the lottery, but I'm not going to go out and buy a new car with the money I haven't won yet. I have nothing to back up this feeling, but I still feel it. And when I take the time to study probability, my hopes of winning dwindle. Reason kicks in and I realize it's a very low probability event.

 

Trust is attractive to me because it's realistic and testable. If I'm attempting to base my decisions about right and wrong on what I believe, trust is really the only type of belief that makes sense to me. It may not give me answers I like, but trust will better reflect reality and reason, and that makes me feel better about my decisions.