After some discussion with Jaime and, through her, with the committee, I have decided to try again with starting this thread.

In this thread, I would like to explore through debate whether "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", "nice" and "nasty", and all the other desirable and undesirable polar opposites reside in people or in their actions.

Option 1 - "we are what we are" - is not a position that is often set out explicitly. It is another way of saying "ends and means do not matter, because I/we are always right or, at least, more often than everyone else". However, I think that it is often an unspoken assumption that is the real motivator of at least some of the people who publicly assert Option 2. Some people have a sense of unbridgeable superiority where other people's opinion doesn't matter, not because they are wrong in a particular case, but because they are somehow wrong by definition, just as they are definitively right. This position does not allow for those that hold it to ever be wrong, and if they are ever shown to be, there is all sorts of denial and blame-shifting, e.g. lawsuits for compensation claims, we failed because my team didn't try hard enough (not because we just aren't as good as we think we are) etc.

Option 2 - "we are what we strive for" - is one of the two that is most commonly stated in public, and is usually more common in the right half of the political spectrum (though not exclusive to it). It is another way of saying "the end justifes the means". Provided we have the "right" goal, we can be forgiven for doing things we would normally think of as "wrong", such as cheating, lying or (on a wider and more contemporary scale) torturing prisoners, detaining people without charges or trial, etc.
This position does admit the possibility that the goal itself may be shown to be wrong, and could be argued to be most pragmatic position in that it allows us to make mistakes without condeming ourselves.

Option 3 - "we are what we do" - is the other most commonly stated position, most commonly in the left half of the political spectrum (though not exclusive to it). It is another way of saying "the end does not justify the means, or at least, not always". Even if we have the "right" goal, if we commit "wrongs" on the way there, we become "wronger" ourselves. Goodness comes from doing good, not from "being" good.
Depending on how you view it, this could be an unachivable goal, since we are human and will sometimes do bad things, or it is pragmatic, since you could take the view that if more than half the things we do are "right" or "good", that may be good enough.

The questions for debate, then, are:
How do you view right and wrong?
Which poll option fits most closely to your perception, and why?
If you sit somewhere in between, which two most closely fit, and why?
And, critically given today's world,
How do you think your government views these concepts?

Let's all try not to shift debate to religion too much. Inevitably religious ideas of "good" and "evil" (or maybe even "sin") might stray into it, but let's keep such examples for illustration only, please.

How do you view right and wrong?

With dismay.

Which poll option fits most closely to your perception, and why?

It has to be option three because its the only option that forces us to behave ourselves if we want to be considered good people.

The idea that the ends justifies the means is just to vague to be valid. You can use that argument to justify anything, and as history shows us, many have.

How do you think your government views these concepts?

My government doesn't. The Danish government is a minority coalition between the Liberal Conservatives and the Conservatives. Between them they don't control enough of the popular vote, so they are forced to go to the nationalists in order to pass their laws and in return they must accomidate certain nationalist wishes, such as making Denmark the hardest nation to immigrate into in western Europe.

Given that this contradicts the stated policy of botht eh conservative parties, I must conclude that the conservatives traded their own morality to get into power.

Editted for spelling

How do you view right and wrong?
Situationally, if possible. Admittedly this approach dances with moral relativism but I generally try and stay away from absolutes, especially when the labels right and wrong are used.

Which poll option fits most closely to your perception, and why?
#3. Principles and intent are noble aspirations but unless the actions match the principle, ultimately it is the deed to defines the "rightness" of the event.

How do you think your government views these concepts?
I would say overall our government walks in the #2 space, but probably dances in (what I view as) the arrogance of #1 quite often. Especialy the present administration. For good or ill (depends on which side you are on), they are convinced they are right with little to no room for consideration they might be wrong or that circumstances might warrant a modification of that worldview. And anyone with an opposing point of view is just wrong. I think this is viewed as a source of strength by many of Bush's supporters. I do not share that view but I can understand how an unwavering adherence to ideals might be viewed as virtuous by itself. Ironically, the President that we just buried was often remembered in that sense (as an unwavering idealogue).

Congress is probably more closely allied with #2. Too much compromise and back-door deals take place for any conclusion other than "the end justifies the means."

Doc

How do you view right and wrong? For individuals, the third choice is the closest. You are what you do, roughly. Of course that’s a pretty simple statement. A person who kills in self defense or one who kills for pleasure is still killing, but I’d say the person killing for pleasure is the “wrong” one...though their actions are the same. Context is everything.

Which poll option fits most closely to your perception, and why? The third. As moif mentioned, everyone has some inherent justification for what they do, even a person who kills for pleasure.

If you sit somewhere in between, which two most closely fit, and why? That’s a hard one. I try to do the right things, but I'm not going to be so altruistic I give my house to the poor. I have my family to think about too, so it's sort of a combination of the second and third. I try to do the right things, but it's also "right" to look towards the future and strive towards it with that goal in mind.

How do you think your government views these concepts? A government that behaves like Ghandi doesn’t serve its people well. I actually doubt it would exist long, if it came into existence at all. It might do something stupid like, say, give away the Panama Canal. Correct government must fit closest to the second option, and strive to serve its people by ultimately benefiting them. That doesn’t mean it shouldn't, or won't, "do the right things", because correct actions will often ultimately come back to benefit that government and its citizens.

Unfortunately, the choices of 'right' and 'wrong' are often not very clearly defined at all..more like the lesser evil for the purpose of ultimate good. To quote JFK: "There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

Sometimes the US government does this properly, and sometimes it definitely does not.

The vote doesn't have my choice: "we are why we do".

In other words, if you save someone's life because you expected a reward for doing that, is that right or wrong? I'd say wrong, because your motivation was selfish even if your actions were not.

As Mrs. P wrote: context is everything.

Fair point - that should have been an option in my original poll. Sorry

I'm going to get flamed for this one.

I believe that we "are what we are." This is a relatively easy position to come by if you don't believe in objective distinctions just as "right," "wrong," "good" and "bad."

I can understand why someone might think "we are what we do" is the correct answer. This is because evil and good are always qualities of an action and never an object. I can think of no object (as in thing, so include people) that is considered evil by anything else besides what it does. If you saw my post in the "Is hate useful" discussion, I would claim this to be a false equivocation.

Take for example a gun. If I believe that killing innocent people is evil, and guns kill innocent people, I might come to the conclusion that guns are also evil. This would be basing it on the assumption that the action is a property of the object. Now, if a gun doesn't kill an innocent person, is it still a gun? If you believe that the gun is not defined by its actions, you would say that it is still a gun.

Now, you might claim that I used an impractical example. It, however, is reflective of people. Hitler killed thousands of jews, and I believe killing jews is evil. Therefore, I think that Hitler, defined by his action, is evil. However, does Hitler have to kill jews in order to still be Hitler. Once again, if your me, you'd say no. Because no object can be evil, I would say that no one can be evil.

This is actually my beginning argument against ethical intuitionism, the leading belief among professional philosophers and ethicists. They claim that there are certain "self-evident" morals and from them can be deduced the morality of an object. "Pleasure is better than pain," "suffering for anothers pleasure is evil" are certain claims that many would consider self-evident. A rational person then weighs these factors and deduces the objects morality. It works alot like math, supposedly.

Take for instance a cube that is 2x2x2. If you believed that "you are what you do" then Hitler would always have to kill jews in order to be evil. Those actions would define the object as much as the twos are defining this cube (which I believe is false).

A intuitionists would claim that self-evident moral principles are defining the objects morality. This would be like saying "pleasure is better than pain" is the equivalent of two. To them, it wouldn't make much sense if I asked them "why is pleasure better than pain?" They would argue that its the exact same as asking "Why is two, two?" I believe the term is naturalistic fallacy: something explained down to its simplest form.

Lets assume the volume of the cube is equivalent to its morality. The Intuitionists would claim that the process of getting eight is alot like the process of getting morality. I take the self-evident moral values, then find out the objects morality. Unfortunately, the relationship with math ends there; one process is objective, the other subjective. I also doubt the validity of these self-evident morals. Of course, its all a matter of opinion.

How do you view right and wrong?

How about a simple explanation for a simple guy. We do things for 4 reasons.
1. We like to.
2. We have to.
3. We are conditioned to.
4. We are moved by an informed conscience.

The first 3 seem to leave ethics out in the cold. So let's examine to 4th.

At a certain level of maturity hopefully we come to appreciate that other people are like us. Out of this comes ethics, which is to say the Golden Rule. To get along in this world we come to learn that a principle of reciprocity must prevail to a reasonable degree or conflict will ensue. Charity and family values and willing social cooperation to a large degree are expressions of this reciprocity principle - recognizing the need and humanity in others as you would like to have yours recognized. In fact all serious ethics stem from this Golden Rule. In making a distinction between selfishness and unselfishness we are also distinguishing the immoral and amoral from the moral. So to consciously act for the good of another in appreciation of their valued humanity is more or less what ethical behavior means.

How do you think your government views these concepts?
The purpose of government is to do for its citizens what they can't do for themselves.

In fulfilling that purpose the government has two elements:
1. A set of rules.
2. People who make and enforce those rules.

So what about government and ethics? Well at a primitive level governments ideally operate through consensus. This would seem to be highly moral because everyone speaks and is heard by everyone and public policy decisions are arrived at with the consent of each adult member. This in essence is the Golden Rule in action with each citizen giving full consideration to the thinking and feelings of the others.

However in the modern state this consensus is virtually broken and so this state loses much of its moral foundation. A hopefully benign elite operates as a substitute, responding commonly to lobbies and mass constituencies as a poor substitute for a careful consideration of ones neighbor's opinion and feeling as happens in consensus. As a result in the modern megastate, even a democratic one, we operate in a moral shadow world. The opportunities for meaningful governance consensus style are limited and our relationship to our large institutions is one of mostly indifference, fear, or fawning dependency. Nevertheless a biological factor lubricates the deficiency of this condition, a primitive tendency to pull together into a cohesive tribal identity, often behind a charismatic leader. Archetypal heroism and sacrifice become the exalted moral models.

The sad amorality of it all is often most starkly played out in the military. The citizen is recruited using the mythos of state morality, heroic symbolism and exalted sacrifice for the state. At crunch time the private faces an officer above him he doesn't know telling him to go out and kill somebody he doesn't know for reasons he doesn't understand. At that level of alienation and removal from personal conscience it is hard to locate where true morality lies.

I consider myself somewhat of a postmodernist which, by nature, sits dangerously close to relativisim - which would include that of the moral variety.

I almost do not belive in right or wrong. Of course, there are some fundamentals - like death - but for the most part, morality grows from system from knowledge, power, philosophy and historical cirumstance. And because history has been so turbulent, violent and opressive, morality has become clouded by right and wrong. In other words, wrong is commited in the name of right. America is particularly guilty of this. First it was Nazism, then it was Communism, then it was Terorrism - but throughout, the result was the same - mass death and suffering in favour - supposedly - of a higher goal. This is exactly what we - America - accuse Marxism of; however, our system is equally, if not more, ambigious and contradictory.

Thus, because it is difficult to consider morality as though it is a phenonmena which exists in a vacuum seperate from society, history and everything else, it cannot be put into neat camps like Julian seems to want to do. Whatever grounds we justify morality it is clouded with cold hearted pragmatism and, concurrently, outward manifestations of political rhetoric. It is therefore unclear what any one camp is or hopes to be. The three distinctions made are not directly observable or even possible to deduce from inference. Thus, Julians aim is methodologically and epistemolgically doomed.