Thread: Perception

Nice quote. I enjoyed Macbeth.

Well, this is a common topic. A lot of things are in many people's opinions perception. However, drug abuse and self-mutilation I think are bad. Why? Because they can hurt, and even kill you. Drug Abuse can fry your brain, and other organs that are very important. Self-Mutilation is self-explanitory. Sure things like maybe a couple peircings arent bad. But say, cutting yourself, these things cause pain and can badly hurt, or even kill you if done too much.

perception is EVERYTHING, it shapes our entire world, how we relate to it and how we interact with it. my perception is there will always be a right and a wrong even if someone else doesnt believe so.

is drug abuse wrong? I think its harmful definately, and it can become very wrong when it wrongs others - including ruining relationships, or even dying much younger than needed and leaving family behind. but does drug abuse have to be wrong? that can include excessive smoking or drinking, and when your old I dont think its right to be denied your pleasures. If youre going to kick the can soon, why not indulge yourself?

I have a friend who does self mutilate. I'm like the polar oppisite of her, I can barely comprehend depression let alone why someone would want to hurt themself. But she tells me the physical pain is better than the mental pain, and by focusing on the physical pain she can stop even worse thoughts. Though I do wish she doesnt have to be in such a position to feel that way to begin with.

Drug abuse or any other form of abusing is not wrong as long as they don't hurt anyone. But even it they don't, they are completely unnecesary. Self-destruction.

I think many people feel that drug abuse or self mutilation gives them a form of control - they can choose to harm themselves, and therefore are free thinking. It might not be the case with drug abuse, if you take the word 'abuse' to mean that they are using it in a harmful manner, then they are most likely addicted to the drug and therefore not quite so free as they mght think.

It does harm others, though. It's self-indulgent and self-centred because most of the time your friends and family are being hurt in the process out of their love for the person. Drug abuse in particular can lead to other crimes such as violence towards others or petty crimes in order to pay for the habit. Is it wrong if you were sitting alone on a desert island? No. Is it wrong if you are a parent or lliving in a close-knit family? Probably.

Originally Posted by Roller

Is it wrong if you were sitting alone on a desert island? No. Is it wrong if you are a parent or lliving in a close-knit family? Probably.
[/b]

That is what I always say "You can do whatever you want as long as it makes no harm to any living being"

I think "Right" and "Wrong" are concepts created entirely by us with a very fine line between them. They are not fixed things and are completely different for every person, and even within a person.

I disagree with perceiving the world in this way, good, bad, right, wrong. It just is what it is.

Many people would say that taking drugs is 'wrong' but living a stagnant life for security is 'right'. Both could be healthy, both could be damaging. But how can you even determine healthy or damaging is 'right or wrong'?

The thing i don't get, why do we have to judge things in an attempt to understand them?

ps- too tired to be writing this right now. . . i barely understand this atm heheh.

Originally Posted by Rav1

That is what I always say "You can do whatever you want as long as it makes no harm to any living being"
[/b]

I don't believe this is something that works though. Think of something like monogomy in relationships for instance. Would it be 'right' for a person to leave a long term partner (who would be caused emotional pain) for someone that they love? There would be pain caused either way.

I just don't think things are black and white like that.

Perception is reality.
And reality is that abusive habits lead to a short life.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Nice quote. I enjoyed Macbeth.

Well, this is a common topic. A lot of things are in many people's opinions perception. However, drug abuse and self-mutilation I think are bad. Why? Because they can hurt, and even kill you. Drug Abuse can fry your brain, and other organs that are very important. Self-Mutilation is self-explanitory. Sure things like maybe a couple peircings arent bad. But say, cutting yourself, these things cause pain and can badly hurt, or even kill you if done too much.
[/b]

That all doesn't explain anything at all. Why is it really bad when you or someone else dies?

I saw you on the forums, and I think most of your moral reasoning is taken from religious stance. However, I think all people draw their morals from a sort of instinct. Unless extremely brainwashed somehow, very very few people enjoy people suffering. Only hate against that person, because you think you are better, like the naiz's thought, can shut off that basic 'moral'.

Anyhow, alot of religious morals also are mixed up with some 'instinctual morals'. Some 'morals' are created totally by religion, like 'thou shall not work on sabbath (or be put to death)', some are partially instinctual, like gay-hate, because it seems pretty clear to me that most heterosexual (especially alpha-) males just don't like the thought of male homosex (and are therefor more easially persuaded by each other to go and hate gay people). Religion turned that into a moral, a 'wrong'. Then there are things that religion totally copied from instinctual morals, being the morals against murder and being all pro-love and such. Who doesn't love love?

However, even the seemingly 'made-up' stuff (bible saying: killing on sabbath = wrong) all comes back to men's love for systems, control, law. People want to leave in a well organized society. I understand from a sociological point of view why 'thou shall not steal' is a commandment.

Anyhow, this isn't about religion, but I think alot of people that talk about morals like they are a value, a measurable thing that is above mankind often draw from religious points of view, thus I thought I would like to put forth my point of view.

-
Main point:

I think that all sense of right and wrong comes from an instinctual sense of right and wrong, to hate suffering, to dislike murder (especially of one's own kind). But a lot of sense of right and wrong also comes from (religious) culture, like stoning people that follow another god to death, or judging people as 'wrong' because they broke the law. I think all that sense of morals and right and wrong also comes from an instinctual drive to work as a group, to live as a society, to have a sort of order.
-

Also I heard the argument 'feeling bad for baby seals/kittens has no evolutionary advantage, thus that sense of morals isn't evolutionary'. I would like to contradict that by saying that people the the (evolutionary useful) 'gift' to actually feel pain in our nuts if someone busts their nuts falling. Same for other people having pain, we see that, and learn to avoid what they do. Somehow, not always as useful, we can also place ourself in the position of animals. Those poor, poor seals : (

That was my 2cents.

Perception may be everything, but there is such a thing as right and wrong. There has to be. We have to draw the line somewhere. If that line did not exist, our world would be in chaos. Would you like to live in a world where your friends and family are dying because someone finds it fun? Would you like to live in a world where people like Hitler are allowed to exist because what they were doing "wasnt wrong."

My ideas of right and wrong don't come from religion. I don't like religion. I believe in God, but not organized religion. But that isnt the point.

Right and wrong are 2 things that, though perception, need to be known, else 2+2 would equal 5. I for one would not live in a world where right and wrong did not exist. With no moral values, the human race would've been destroyed eons ago, because there would be nothing holding someone back from killing another who looked at them funny.

People would go around killing others just for fun because there is nothing wrong with it. We'd live in a bloody world, that would never advance, that would never love, never have kindness. It'd be a dark world with people being shot or stabbed around you, and you'll just shrug your shoulders.

Let me ask you, if you were in a hospital and you were watching your wife give birth to a new child. You child is born and you see it in its first seconds of life. However, one guy in the room doesn't like the look so he just throws the child away. What would your reaction be? A man just killed your new born child because he maybe didnt like its nose. Would you just shrug your shoulders and not care because you know right and wrong are just a perception and "dont exist" in your eyes?

That said, its okay to kill, its okay to rape, its okay to torture, its okay to destroy, its okay to lie, cheat, and steal. Everything is okay. Its okay for a newborn baby to be killed, and 2+2 CAN equal 5 right?

Where do we draw the line?

I don't get this 'point', that I heard a lot for religious people by the way, the point of 'oh, so you just can just go around killing everyone blabla'.

I don't say we shouldn't draw a line, in my previous post I just said We draw that line. And that in our instinct lies a little hint of where that personal line would be.

Really, Exo, against who and with what arguments are you saying 'so we can just go around killing people and that would be alright', or whatever it was you said?

From your post its hard to see if you think a line should be drawn or not.

I wasn't saying that "Oh if there was no right and wrong you could just go about killing people" its an example of one of many things that would happen in the world. It would descend into chaos as there would go around killing. Thats not to say that there would be no kindness what so ever, but kindness or evil, no one would care because nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

But, if you do agree that a line should be drawn, why argue? Your arguing that Right and Wrong is a perceptional line. We know that, but we both agree that its a line that is there and should be there, so what is being argued?

Nice post

Now, in relation to the original question.
It all depends on surroundings.
For me, if you want to cut yourslef, why is that wrong?
because society says so!

now, like someone said above, if you have children and maybe you'll die, and leave them without a farther, then it could be considered selfish.
Sleifshness is generally considered to be wrong.

I would say generally that I dont find these two things wrong as you are hurting yourslef primarily
thats the persons opwn perogative
murder is a differnt matter entirely
the primary victim has no choice.

Imran

Originally Posted by someweirdsin

I don't believe this is something that works though. Think of something like monogomy in relationships for instance. Would it be 'right' for a person to leave a long term partner (who would be caused emotional pain) for someone that they love? There would be pain caused either way.
[/b]

It is also another reason that people should first grow up to engaging into fixed relationships. But some get married at the age of 17 because it is trendy, cool or just out of sheer boredom. Then such an inmatured relationship is supposed to break apart sooner or later. Most of them at least.
And in such cases who is to put the blame on? The god, the universe, the society, the bad president?

Originally Posted by ExoByte

[color=#3333FF]Would you like to live in a world where your friends and family are dying because someone finds it fun? Would you like to live in a world where people like Hitler are allowed to exist because what they were doing "wasnt wrong."
[/b]

Hate to break it to you - Friends and family DO die, and Hitler DID exist. And was supported by a massive amount of people who thought he was 'right'. Woops! Looks like we're living in chaos after all.

I've got to agree with Neruo at the moment. He's got some pretty good points.

Originally Posted by Rav1

It is also another reason that people should first grow up to engaging into fixed relationships. But some get married at the age of 17 because it is trendy, cool or just out of sheer boredom. Then such an inmatured relationship is supposed to break apart sooner or later. Most of them at least.
And in such cases who is to put the blame on? The god, the universe, the society, the bad president?
[/b]

I think you've missed my point entirely. I'm trying to say basically that SHIT HAPPENS. That whatever you do in life, no-one can be happy and satisfied all the time. Sometimes really horribly things happen to people which might be considered 'wrong' but work out being something valuable. I believe if there is a natural sense of "right" and "wrong" it can be stemmed from a natural animal survival instinct, religion and social construct.

But I believe it is all perception. There is no line. Its all the same thing. Just is what it is.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

From your post its hard to see if you think a line should be drawn or not. [/b]

Well, I wasn't talking about that part at all. I was just talking about where, according to me, morals and stuff come from. I do agree that lines should be draw, but since people do that personally, and everyone has different lines, I don't really saw the point in saying it.

I wasn't saying that "Oh if there was no right and wrong you could just go about killing people" its an example of one of many things that would happen in the world. It would descend into chaos as there would go around killing. Thats not to say that there would be no kindness what so ever, but kindness or evil, no one would care because nothing is right and nothing is wrong. [/b]

Would you go around killing? Even if there was no law? It is in the nature of people to draw lines. Even if you would tell people that morals are abolished, people will still keep them, somewhat.

So, unless you change the nature of people, there will always be morals. Maybe one some areas some different ones however, but hey, people used to burn witches, it was normal in those days. And little bambi's get eaten by lions. Boo-Hoo.

But, if you do agree that a line should be drawn, why argue? Your arguing that Right and Wrong is a perceptional line. We know that, but we both agree that its a line that is there and should be there, so what is being argued?
[/b]

I still wonder where you get the whole 'It would descend into chaos as there would go around killing.' idea. What would have to happen for that to become reality? I think a change in human nature would have to happen, not just anarchy.

I agree, to an extent, with someweirdsin and Neuro. It is true that everything depends on your perception of it - some of my views would be a prime example of it. One of my views on a possibility of how things are is detailed below.

Some people's views are that in order for something to exist, it must be observed, for example those expressed here. But what proof is there that this observation proves existance? It would be so simple for a single consciousness that exists by itself to simulate five senses. I theorize that nothing actually exists. That the fingers with which you and I are typing are not there. The hardware in front of you is an illusion. Because, when you take away all senses, what is there? Yourself. You can only know that you exist.

I don't even mean your body - when you close your eyes in a soundless, scentless, tasteless room as sleep paralysis numbs your sense of touch, you can only know that you yourself exist. Each person, also, cannot know that other people exist. Though you can infer that they do, considering that each person exists and perceives that they exist. There is no way to really know, however - if other people did not exist and they were an illusion your own mind made, those illusions would still act as if they did exist to make the illusion of existance complete.

Perhaps we are actually all one in the same. In the endless nothingness that one was faced with, one created the illusion of existance. One separated one's consciousness into an infinite number of pieces, and experienced reality. Perhaps one started in one person's existance, then at that life's death proceeded to live through the life of the next created person. Perhaps we are all pieces of the same consciousness that one purposely shut off from each other in order to create the complete illusion of existance. One way or another, if this is true, the illusion is complete. There is no way that one can know whether things exist or not.

Perhaps I'll use the above in a new topic, it would belong in such a place. Perhaps. Though probably not. The purpose of my explaining it here was to show a possible perception that proves that everything depends on what your perception of reality is.

Returning to the main point, if you follow the above perception of reality, anything done is justified. If you use drugs, you would damge vital organs which do not exist. So would it then be wrong to do? Self-mutilation, drug intake, and suicide would things that don't really happen, and therefore wouldn't be wrong.