The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is right and what is wrong? > Comments

What is right and what is wrong? : Comments

By Graham Preston, published 1/2/2007

Book review: 'Right and wrong - how to decide for yourself' by Hugh Mackay.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
How very heroic of this poster to have waded through the treacly syrup of Mackay's book. I always found his columns of fuzzy generalities far too much for this down to nitty gritty earthling.
He appears to dwell in far away ivory castles where us Aussies would never dare to defile the splendour of his multiculture magic.
I suspect his closest neighbours would be some of the pollies in our parliament.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 1 February 2007 1:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When everyone thinks they are god they are left with no other conclusion other that they can make up the rules as they go. Hugh Mackays faith in the humans ability to choose good is amazing. Its a shame that history is totally against his assumptions. Amorality (people deriving morals from experience) has failed us miserably for decades. The end result of this flawed reasoning is a Sodom and Gommorah community.

Those who reject absolutes always come up with their own set. The fact that people correct spelling mistakes shows this. Some things are always right while some things will always be wrong.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 1 February 2007 2:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it interesting that this particular person has written this review.

"Graham Preston, is part of group that has, over the last five years, been involved in non-violently intervening to rescue preborn children at Queensland abortion “clinics” by sitting in front of their doors."

Morality is a tough issue. Relativism vs certainties - both exist when it comes to morality, but deciding precisely when certainties become relative is difficult.
I haven't read this book to critique it for myself, though I know it can't be easy to write something that attempts to define these lines - especially when you know people are going to disagree.

Especially on issues such as abortion. Clearly Graham sees this issue as more of a certainty.
I can't help but wonder what book he would write if he were attempting to pin down morality, but I rather suspect I may disagree with it, at least in part.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 1 February 2007 2:31:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again the absolutists have ridden out on pearly white steeds to tell us that, by daring to think for ourselves, we are opening the gates to murder, rape and, presumably, Hell. That without a rigid adherence to a definition of right and wrong (provided conveniently by their God of choice) we are doomed.

I don’t buy it. A person’s moral code isn’t what they profess- it is what they do. My experience is that people handed a code find it easier to rationalize a way around it that those who take the time to develop their own.

An example: Graham states he is a ‘non-violent’ rescuer of the pre-born. Maybe, but many others are not, judging but the death and destruction they’ve wrought.

I’m sure they would argue they are taking right and moral actions, supported by their absolute and God-given moral code. But most Gods tend to be very specific about things like killing your fellow human- ‘Thou shall not kill’ doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle-room.

Seem a little contradictory? If killing can be justified, it can not be an absolute but becomes relative to the situation. Yet these are the very people that reject relativism!

In spite of this, we still know right from wrong (usually). How?

I have attended several philosophy courses. One key thought stuck with me- however you evaluate the benefits (utilitarian, rights-based), a decision can never be right if it is inherently self-serving.

Kindness, respect, courage are inherently selfless and therefore right. Killing, stealing, pedophilia, incest are inherently selfish and therefore wrong. (BTW- so is deciding that your feeling of outrage over abortion is more important that someone else’s life or dignity.)

We know these things in our gut, not because someone needed to tell us it. But what constitutes selfish and selfless, more often than not, depends on the situation. Personally, I’m far more comfortable trusting someone willing to take a moment and think about a decision, than someone who so caught up in absolutes that the merits of the situation don’t matter.
Posted by mylakhrion, Thursday, 1 February 2007 3:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strewth, here we go again, although I enjoyed the review and the points it makes, I was completely put off by the phrase "fatally flawed". Why on earth do things have to be "fatally" flawed no one seems to be able to use the word flawed without joining it with "fatally" Mind you sometimes we get a daring writer from out left field who says "fundamentally" flawed, now that is a sign of a real writer of wit and grace. Isn't it??
Posted by onemack, Thursday, 1 February 2007 6:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onemack (Truck?), I'm floored by that, landed on my fundament, hopefully not fatefully or even fatally.

Ultimately, each one of us has to develop the wisdom to act morally, but a guide is a handy starting-point. For example, the panca-sila of many Eastern religions, undertaking not to kill, steal, lie, commit sexual misconduct or take intoxicants; seeking to harm neither others nor oneself. The context for that in the Buddha's teaching is that breaking those rules can be done only with a disturbed mind, e.g. one dominated by greed or lust, following the moral rules quietens the mind, allowing the development of concentration of the mind and, with appropriate practice, wisdom, purification of the mind, eventually developing a volition which does not need a guide, a code, avoiding harm to others becomes inherent. But Mackay seems to know nothing of this.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 1 February 2007 10:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well..if we are going to have Buddha's teaching, we may as well have the Biblical one :)

"Ultimately, each one of us has to develop the wisdom to act morally"

said brother Fautino. Which of course leads us back to the Article title "what IS right and wrong..moral"

Well, aside from the theocratic Israelite community laws of the Old Testament, the basic thrust of it all is summed up in 2 statements.
1/ Love God with all your heart.
2/ Love your neighbour as yourself.

There is nothing simpler and more encompassing. Lets explore the idea of 'Love your neighbour'..withOUT "Love God".... if God, the ultimate moral authority, is 'not', then morality is totally relative to culture and philosophical whim. Anyone doubting this, (if they are old enough) should look back to the late 50s, and compare concepts of 'right and wrong' to those of 'now'.

Clearly, we are a ship adrift in a sea of moral whim. So, when Buddha outlined his 4fold way and noble 8fold something, he did it in an ethical context where most people understood its meaning.

If you try to transplant that social understanding to another culture, it may be meaningless and without connectivity to ethical/moral reference points. So, something which is considered 'noble' by the Buddha, might be considered 'abominable' or just plain stupid by some tribal person of Irian Jaya.

This is why we need the divine input "This is they way, walk ye in it"
From that foundation, we can call mankind back to account for his waywardness.

When the great prophets of the Old Testament called upon the people to forsake idolatry, they were also calling them to forsake immoral conduct, as Idolatry and immorality went together like 2 peas in a pod.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 2 February 2007 8:11:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David B, the moral basis I derived from my Christian mother has served me well, and is essentially the same as the panca-sila (five-fold morality) that I mentioned. The Buddha said that, whether or not there is a God, you have to make efforts yourself, bring about your own salvation; and you can do this by developing your own deep understanding of reality, so that your wisdom is derived from your own direct experience rather than from external sources such as scripture. You might notice that I’ve never decried scripture, but I tend to see it as a guide and inspiration rather than being sufficient in itself.

You and I have broadly similar moral beliefs, we differ mainly in that you believe that there is a God to whom we must surrender in order to develop spiritually, I don’t share that belief. But it does seem to me that, call it what you will, there is an underlying moral order, that adherence to it will bring benefits for oneself and others in this life and, if there is another life, in that too.

The second major difference is that your approach is highly sectarian. Truth, absolute reality, cannot be sectarian, it must be universal. The Buddha taught a universal technique, not Buddhism, and followers of any or no religion can benefit from practising it without being required to put aside their faith. Many Christians have done so.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 2 February 2007 8:29:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ridiculous Preston. Any true discussion on moral values in a world where War and Poverty smack at the heart of the present, would be useful.

While I have not read Hugh Mackay’s book “Right and wrong - how to decide for yourself”, I see no contradiction through your rebuttals. In fact from the beginning I see your explanations from the first para onwards extremely pro-negative and out of balance. Unfortunately you appear to sell us a weaker argument.

Ie: You say;

a) “Does he actually mean that Hitler, torturers, and child abusers have the right to do whatever they want and no one should interfere?

And,

b) “pedophilia and incest are okay after all, apparently.”

Then finally as negative as your opening para you say;

c) “However, if humanity has simply happened to evolve out of the slime, then Mackay is correct that there are no moral absolutes.”

Nasty stuff Preston. I truly feel you might read more with depth as you sit with your ‘group …. over the next five years, … intervening to rescue preborn children at Queensland abortion “clinics” by sitting in front of their doors.’

You may mean well, and you have the right to “mean well” but your own stance is unreasonable, heartless and totally flawed through this presentation.

http://www.miacat.com
Posted by miacat, Friday, 2 February 2007 8:36:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Personally, I’m far more comfortable trusting someone willing to take a moment and think about a decision, than someone who so caught up in absolutes that the merits of the situation don’t matter."

Too right, Mylakhrion. While those who reject moral absolutes will devise their own set in order to justify their actions, those who adhere to them will just as surely do the same. Any number of atrocities have been committed in the name of so-called morals, just as they have in the name of other causes. The author might sit on the steps of abortion clinics, but at least he doesn't blow them up.

Personally I'm in favour of DB's point 2. Not a lot to quibble about there.
Posted by bennie, Friday, 2 February 2007 9:14:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is right and wrong. And there is outright evil. Most everyone aside from the occasional sociopath is guided by the innate conscience. Humans have an inherent essential nature. That nature is to be good. Even with our liberal societies we only suffer about 5% criminal behavior. Which isn't a great deal considering the number and extent of our laws that we have for the most part agreed to uphold.

Even in a condition of total anarchy good would be struggling to assert itself through human behavior. Conditions for relating would soon be defined. There is long term benefit in being good. Any advantage to behaving badly is short term and carries a cost that generally voids the interim period.

A tired example I'm sure but, five years of Hitler and Nazism got the German people very short term gains. For all the Nazi struggled to dominate, take, steal, coerce, murder, rape and plunder, documents show that the cost of executing the war had drastically emptied the national coffers and that an end was a precondition in spite of any victory and all gains expected never materialized.
Germany still had their unemployment issues post WWII to contend with requiring tremendous aid and logistics on behalf of the Allies.
(excluding Russian interference)
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 2 February 2007 9:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it somewhat bizarre when people defend logical contradictions. Moral Relativism is a useless idea that no one believes. Quite often, it is merely used by those seeking to appear 'tolerant' whilst they attempt to get other people to follow their own morality.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 2 February 2007 4:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>I find it somewhat bizarre when people defend logical contradictions.<<

Grey, your definition of a logical contradiction presumably includes those Christians who observe the commandment "thou shalt not kill" by joining the army and blowing people up?

How much more "morally relative" can you get?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 2 February 2007 5:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Prestons literature review was flawed because to assert McLeay’s work is flawed requires reason rather than just say so. It could be accidental on Prestons part or it may be due to lack of interest on the subject or some loaded agenda. Who knows?

To address the issue raised about self determined morality we only have to look at ourselves and our neighbours. As a godless person I have never stolen, never killed, never cheated. An extraordinary number of Christians kill, cheat, steal; backstab ect while at the same time claiming moral superiority. Proof complete that morality is anthropogenic and in most cases individual constructs.

If morality was absolute that makes God or Allah immoral according to their deeds in scripture. Hell itself is immoral. Jesus demonstrated very bad values through his exclusionism and his preaching that those who were not of his superstition would be eternally tortured. Again God is not proven , it is claimed on the basis of made up knowledge so is a superstitious tool of deception so the concept of god is immoral.

No real god to speak of then morality belongs to man and man only and his invention.

The historical adage of morality is treating others the way you would like to be treated (No Christians, Jesus did not invent this). Good is what has a positive or at worst benign effect on people and their lives. Bad is what has a negative effect on people. Evil is the bad with complete lack or empathy for others. Primates are hardwired through evolution to be social animals and social cohesion is the characteristic which has made many primate species successful. From Baboons and Gibbons to Humans we share what we may describe as a trait for common good. Nature through evolution throws in doomed genes in which we will be confronted by a certain percentage of what we call evil which society will eject and in the wild at least snuff out that line.
Posted by West, Saturday, 3 February 2007 6:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy