If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:57 pm

And what rules should they be as they frequently change?

PhilX

surreptitious57
Posts: 1761
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:26 pm

There is no universal consensus on what is right or wrong but even if there was there would
still need to be rules in order to prohibit any wrongdoing and punish those who had done so

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:26 pm
There is no universal consensus on what is right or wrong but even if there was there would
still need to be rules in order to prohibit any wrongdoing and punish those who had done so
When you say prohibit any wrongdoing, do you mean the wrongdoer himself or potential wrongdoing by others? What if the wrongdoer were rich so he can get himself a comfortable jail? Or afford a lawyer who can get himself a reduced sentence or find loopholes in the law to get off scot-free? What do you consider to be wrongdoing? Should the violent wrongdoer be executed? (regardless of state of mind)

These are some of the wrinkles.

PhilX

surreptitious57
Posts: 1761
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:27 am


I mean potential wrongdoing by others which is any wrongdoing in a legal sense only

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:39 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:27 am

I mean potential wrongdoing by others which is any wrongdoing in a legal sense only
We may share the same idea about wrongdoing, but to make it clear for everyone, what do you mean by wrongdoing? Who gets to establish that? Is there a simple rule or is it a complicated legal quagmire? Is it set in stone (like the Biblical Ten Commandments) for all time?

Why does the law concerning crime and punishment (catchy title) change over time?

PhilX

surreptitious57
Posts: 1761
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:20 am

Law is made by the legislature and implemented by the judiciary
It is an eternal work in progress and is definitely not set in stone

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:26 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:20 am
Law is made by the legislature and implemented by the judiciary
It is an eternal work in progress and is definitely not set in stone
Then you're saying there's no absolute right or wrong. It would depend (but at rockbottom, depend ultimately on what?)

PhilX

duszek
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by duszek » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:35 am

Many situations are not clear and full of conflicting values.
So we have doubts and don´t know what to do.
"On the one hand ..., on the other hand ..."

Rules help to make the right decision in such situations.
Often enough we have to make an exception and to reformulate the rule.

Walker
Posts: 5098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Walker » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:10 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:57 pm
And what rules should they be as they frequently change?

PhilX
As a principle, rules are for the purpose of maintaining the design of a form, which makes optimal movement possible. The form can be a person or society.

For the person, there are natural rules of movement that if followed, result in the greatest energy efficiency. More bang for the buck. Such discovered rules are non-arbitrary, inherent rules based on the design of form. For instance, each person has an optimal running form for speed and endurance, and the form of the movement is based on the particular body design. Since humans are the same basic design, the natural rules of running based on energy efficiency can be laid out with a broad brush and then fine-tuned for the individual. Such rules are discovered, and such rules change as the body changes, whether those changes are person-made or natural. Even enhanced forms of locomotion are subject to this principle.

There are also non-arbitrary, inherent rules for movements that constitute optimal interactions within a society of individuals. Optimal is defined as the best compromise for competing interests between individuals, and between an individual and the group. Best is defined as optimal satisfaction under the conditions of compromise.

In competition for food and resources, or to win the race, optimal form of movement is the ticket to survival, and ideal rules conceptually define the optimal form of interacting movements between individuals who form the society.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Science Fan » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:43 pm

A person may "know" right from wrong, while still committing immoral acts, which would be one reason for having rules, even if everyone knew and agreed on what was morally right and wrong.

prof
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by prof » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:01 pm

Hi, Phil, Science Fan, surreptitious57, Walker, and all posters


As Dr. Katz wrote in Basic Ethics: a systematic approach pp. 36-37 : http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
WHAT SERVES AS MORAL SANCTIONS?

There are at least three dimensions of moral sanctions.

(Systemic): The body of ethically-sound and consistently-
enforced law. Statute law.

[Those with psychopathic tendencies, those who lack empathy – due to brain damage or to an extremely-poor upbrining -- are restrained chiefly by this.]

(Extrinsic): Public opinion
.
(Intrinsic): Pangs of a sensitive, educated conscience
(pangs which vibrate at the very thought of wrongdoing.) The reader knows already from an awareness of the logical Hierarchy of Value (the correct order of value priorities) that the Intrinsic sanctions are the best.
Also, be sure to see the discussion of this on pp. 62-63 HERE:

https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C

Those derived principles are not rules. They are guidelines; they are suggestions. A list of them is also found on page 43 here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ics%20.pdf

Was this helpful?
Any questions or comments?

Abunai
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:50 pm

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by Abunai » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:53 am

Because everybody has their own perception of right from wrong so it's to keep the majority in balance

JackSalad
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:36 pm

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by JackSalad » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:00 am

There's a phenomenon called weakness of will in which a person knows what the right thing to do is, but does something worse instead. Someone may know it's not right to steal but steal anyway because they don't care about the rules. If you were to add a penalty to not following the rules, then maybe rules would have some power. But if they knew there are no penalties, people will probably just do what they want. It reminds me of that Einstein quote that says if people only are good for fear of punishment or hope for reward, we are a sorry lot indeed.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by ken » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:19 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:57 pm
And what rules should they be as they frequently change?

PhilX
But we do not NEED rules. We just follow the ones that already exist. From childhood we are told to follow the rules that others make. We are forced to follow those rules from fear of being punished and/or ridiculed.

There is only one "rule" I know of that would best be followed, and that rule is the One that EVERY ONE could agree with, and from birth would want to voluntarily follow any way.

Rules only frequently change because new "leaders" are frequently changing.

Discovering and finding out what our purpose for being here is, and who and what our real Self is, is just a part of what leads to a Self-governing society where ALL are behaving with, and for, everyone else as One, with voluntary enthusiasm. Following one's own true Self is what we all want to do and thus would do voluntarily anyway.

Made up rules are not necessary as EVERY one KNOWS what IS right and what IS wrong from roughly birth. When all meaningful answers, to Life's supposed mysteries, are recognized and agreed with, then knowing what to do and how to support One another becomes obvious and natural behavior will follow, with ALL starting to behave accordingly because that is what they naturally WANT to do, NOT because they are forced to.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Post by ken » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:22 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:26 pm
There is no universal consensus on what is right or wrong
There IS universal consensus. You just have not found it yet.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:26 pm
but even if there was there would
still need to be rules in order to prohibit any wrongdoing and punish those who had done so
Punishment is NOT needed. Punishment, itself, IS a wrongdoing anyway. And, in fact, punishment is one of the worst wrongdoings.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests