Philosophy or sophistry

[whiteypoker]

What makes something right? What makes something wrong?

No need to describe attributes... Just answer the question sir!

[Ultrawolf]

Pardon my ignorance but What exactly is Sophistry?

[reaper]

It’s an argument that sounds plausible but is bullshit.

Facts are right.

Disproved facts are wrong.

Everything else is opinion and speculation.

[Tenshiai]

I'm so sorry but I can't answer that question.

Wrong and right depend of so many things...moral, laws, personal happiness, society happinness. If you want an answer you must clearify this question.

With an universal question you'll only have messy answer.

That's philosophy. You must find your own truth in there. Wich fact, wich good thing or wrong thing bugging you?

You must think about it and search if that's really a fact first then for whom ? why?

[Girkon]

Hmmm first you gotta ask, why is that question asked in the first place.

[Minosheep]

It's subjective.

The difference between what is right and what is wrong is what you were raised to believe is the difference between right and wrong.

[Shurikane]

Does the action cause harm in a direct or indirect way on people around you, or cause destruction of objects or kills animals where it was not necessary? If so, the action is wrong.

Does the action cause benefit on people around you, or contributes to the better being of your environment? If so, then the action is good.

It it does neither, then nothing can be said.

If the action can be considered both good and bad, it must be taken on a case by case basis. Generally, if the action causes much more benefit than harm, then it's considered good under the given conditions - otherwise it is taken as bad.

[Blues]

Right and wrong, of both the ethical and moral stripes, are illusions, fabrications of the human condition. They are unnatural constructs designed to help our narrow minds percieve the world.

The mere idea of right and wrong is sophistry.

[whiteypoker]

Sophistry is exactly what reaper said...in this case its a person who puts forth a marvelous answer to a question, which on the surface sounds plausable, but is fact only meant to dazzle the audience into believing the answer, not really answer the question.

If one is to believe rightness and wrongness rely on proved or disproved facts, how does one "prove" a fact?

If one is to believe rightness and wrongness are variable, how are we to know what qualities to look for in situation? If there are no universialites, that is no tangible qualities, with regards to rightness and wrongness, how do you know when you have found it?

If one is to believe that rightness and wrongness can be discovered by finding the answer to, "Why do we need an answer to this?" can any problem be solved by simply locating the answer to why we need a solution?

If one is to believe that rightness and wrongness are a product of your upbringing, then how can we possibly find those who have different upbringings at fault for anything?

If one is to believe that rightness and wrongness are dependant on determining necessity, who judges necessity?

[Ming]

Ok folks...let the philosophy student steer you all in the right direction.

Simply, that which is right is that which I claim is right, since I'm always right. And that which is wrong is that which I claim is wrong...again, since I'm always right.

So there is the answer to your question. I would encourage you all to share your opinions and beliefs, but since I'm always right, this is not necessary.



(And of course you know...I'm just kidding. You didn't expect me to be serious, now did you? When is philosophy ever serious?)