This conversation is closed.

If we determinate our own moral laws, then how come some people are considered as bad people ?

If people are the rulers of their self and determinate their own moral laws, then how come if one do something, that he consider as a good thing, but hurt others, he is considered as a bad person ? If the ''good things'' and ''bad things'' are determinate by the moral law, and if we make our own moral laws, then how can anybody be considered as a bad person ? For example, if i broke your PC, and you accuse me of being bad and evil, but i consider it ok under my moral laws, who can be right or wrong in this case ? you consider me bad under your moral laws but i consider my self as good under my moral laws, so how can we know who is right and who is wrong ? If people make their own moral laws and follow them, i think its impossible to accuse someone of having a bad moral laws dont you agree ? Even giving the definition of a good and bad moral law is something that you make from your own moral law. Who can say what is good and what is bad ? I absolutely can't see how can this happen..

  • thumb
    Oct 4 2011: Every healthy member of the human race agrees in the notion that being born on this planet gives an equal right to anybody. By that right one may think or do what seems appropriate but never violate the right of someone else.
    To break down this notion in soldiers to get them fight a war or for slave traders to do their job without feeling guilty, it was necessary to dehumanize the enemy or to picture slaves as just another kind of animal.
  • A B

    • 0
    Oct 4 2011: There may be no universal rights and wrongs, but there are relativistic ones. Just because you understand that there is no such thing as a best colour doesn't mean that you can't have a favorite - the same thing applies to morals. And since our morals tend to be shaped by our surroundings and experiences, people belonging to the same culture or country tend to share a great deal of their ethical standards. In which case, anyone who does something which deviates significantly from these standards would be considered bad or evil by society at large (majority rules).

    As well, "right" and "wrong" don't have to be determined by morals. You could say that "bad" is anything that causes harm, and "good" is anything that does not. Pain, sadness and fear are much more staight-forward concepts than morality (though of course they are open to some interpretation as well).
  • thumb
    Oct 4 2011: Thinkers have agreed upon universal morality over the centuries to avoid this problem.
    Enslaving someone, for instance, is considered wrong by these universal ethics.

    But you're right. The Declaration of Human Rights is quite recent in history. Before that, it was up to the man in charge whether deeds were good or bad. It's a blessing we have these, it really was a revolution, a priceless moral progress.