Do you agree that there's no right or wrong in this world, but the balance of matter?

No. That would be a bleak, Godless universe.

It depends on the perspective from which it’s being observed.

Sorry, but right and wrong exist.

I would say there are actions, which are perceived.
Subsequently to be judged by individuals as being wrong or right.

No.

No. Harming another person is wrong in my moral universe.

The problem with the question is that there is no universally accepted definition of right and wrong.

@filmfann says that god has to be involved somehow. But what about atheists? And religion (if you assume god and religion are somehow connected) – well, there are hundreds of different religions each with their own beliefs.

@janbb talks about her personal moral view, but is that universal? I doubt it. The policies of the Trump administration harm millions of humans, and yet he has widespread support.

Right and wrong are personally defined, and as such can’t be be considered as a universal or global yardstick.

TO answer @kathylammmm ‘s question: It’s a sliding scale. There are no absolutes.

I think there is an absolute that some things are right and wrong. We might not all agree on everything that we feel is right and wrong, but there will always be some degree of agreement I think, or society can’t exist. Not for any length of time anyway. People need to have basic agreements of how they interact with each.

We are all parts of larger entities, and I don’t mean that in a strictly spiritual sense. We are parts of a family, a community, a nation and various levels of the natural world. Morality relates to our obligations to these higher orders.

Right, and wrong, are both human constructs. And they differ from culture, to culture.

Right and wrong is a subjective observation subject to the laws of nature which is the great equalizer further defined by this balance of matter all of which is momentarily tweaked and tickled by the butterfly effect of our existence in this cosmos.

I do not agree. Right and/or wrong is in the mind and can differ depending on who is discerning it.

There’s an awful lot of killing done by people who believe they are in service of “right”. And a lot of people who avoid taking action because the action involved would be “wrong”.

@filmfann

But it is a bleak, Godless world.

No.

@kathylammmm No. There may not be any such thing as an “objective” right or wrong, but that is not the same thing as saying that there is no right or wrong at all. Morality is an invention, but a useful one. And it is inextricable from our lives insofar as it is built upon sentiments of approval and disapproval that are innate in our species (even if not in each individual member thereof).

By the way, I have no idea what “but the balance of matter” is supposed to mean in the context of your question title. Is there perhaps a word missing?

@elbanditoroso “The problem with the question is that there is no universally accepted definition of right and wrong.”

You like to repeat this as if it’s some sort of clobber argument or conversation stopper, but it really isn’t. For one, the fact that there is disagreement does not—on its own—tell us much at all. There is disagreement about nearly everything, but that does not negate the existence of facts altogether.

For another, there are plenty of things for which there aren’t universal definitions (for kicks, I did a Google search for “no universally accepted definition of” and got results like “God,” “trust,” “operating system,” “indigenous peoples,” and “treatment-resistant depression”), but that does not preclude discussion of any of those things. In fact, it makes discussion of those things all the more important.

And indeed, there are plenty of strategies for dealing with the lack of a shared definition. The most basic is to simply pick a potential definition and investigate it. You could have asked “how would you define right or wrong?” and then responded to whatever was offered in return. Alternatively, you could have said “here’s how I define right and wrong, and here’s why those definitions have led me to some particular conclusion about rightness and wrongness.” Or if you wanted to be truly exhaustive, you could offer different definitions of right and wrong and examine the merits and flaws of each in turn.

Pointing to disagreement and then saying there are no absolutes doesn’t actually answer the question because right and wrong can exist even in the absence of “absolute” or “objective” rights and wrongs.

I should clarify my question in a more clearer way. What I am trying to convey in this question is that there is no absolute right or wrong in this world, what people called “right” and “wrong” totally depends on one’s subjectivity and culture. I always think that right or wrong do not exist in the universe as well, there are only consequences of your own action. For example, most people perceive killing a person as wrong, however, when it comes to murdering a serial killer, people might be a bit confused to judge if it’s right or wrong, they fall into the grey area of right and wrong.

@SavoirFaire This returns to your question concerning the “balance of matter”. Maybe I should put this in a more explicit way, consequences of people’s own actions actually refer to “karma” in my point of view, and karma will lead to the balance of the universe (matters) – everything. I myself also believe in spirituality, karma is related to the causes of something that happened and the results of your own actions – in your past and present lives. But this might go off topic, so what I am trying to say is that there might not be right or wrong in the universe, just the consequences of your actions.

A necessary condition for a moral/immoral act is that it causes pleasure or displeasure or is beneficial or harmful. I am being deliberately vague. This site expands on this idea.

Depriving someone else of life is an absolute wrong for which there will be karma.

@marinelife you’re coming at me with a machete and if I don’t shoot you first, you will kill me through decapitation.

I’m going to kill you to save my own life.

Why am I wrong?.

There are cases where it may be justified, but it is a serious matter and one that always haunts the life taker.

Karma doesn’t exist. Or if it does, it works different than almost any definition of the word. Or, the world works very differently than we understand.

For instance, a 1 year old child dying of leukemia. Karma would imply, that that child had done something SO wrong, it deserved a slow agonizing death. When in reality, it hasn’t even really done anything except eat, and pass food.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have dictators (throughout history,) who did unspeakably evil acts, perhaps to millions, and led long, luxurious lives.

Or. People who have done nothing but “good,” and have terrible things happen to them.

Sure. There are examples of some people having something bad happen to them, after they did something deplorable. But this, IMO, could be chalked up to randomness…

@MrGrimm888 Karma does exist but it exists in that same astral plane as religions, Santa Clause and Leprechauns. Karma is a belief system that all actions and intents have consequences. And true Karmic belief is good actions are good Karma and the belief is good karma is what will influence ones re-birth. The more good Karma the better your next life will be and visa versa. So people who sow good karma this time around, their next life will be full of always being first in line, no flight delays, and a long healthy life. Be a douche bag and sow bad Karma and you are reincarnated as a New York subway turnstile.

^Your explanation holds no logic.

@MrGrimm888 You are catching on.

The issue is that most westerners labor under a completely erroneous concept of karma. Meanwhile eastern teachers have been trying to correct this error for decades, with little success. Folks simply refuse to let go of their mistaken ideas.

Catching on to nothing but chaos. Chaos, is the real variable, in this world, and the universe. That is the main variable.