Hell If I Know
 

I started to think...if someone doesn't know something is wrong, is it still wrong? And what defines wrong?

Classic Example(usually occurs in the military): Person A, usually of higher authority than Person B and dispatched Person B to find information because Person A is too busy. Person B tells Person A a...non-truth(for kindness sake, I'll use that term). Since Person A is unable, due to having their own duties to attend to, research Person B's information, does this make Person A at fault for inormation provided by Person B?

Another Classic Example: Parents raising their children. Perhaps parents know that certain actions(stealing, lying, battery, etc.) are wrong. But, they raise their kids, telling their kids those actions are right. I forget what movie it was, but this one woman had trained her daughter to pick people's pockets, justifying these actions by telling her daughter, "We're like Robin Hood. We only steal from the rich and give to the poor. But as you know, we're poor." Is it the child's fault for faulty(no pun intended) raising?

And cultural differences. Like in America, it's considered rude to interrupt a speaker while talking. But I've learned in Japan, it's encouraged because it shows the listener is, well, listening. And in America, people tend to like to keep their distance from each other, getting close only for intimate purposes(I honestly didn't know about that until I was fifteen, so I guess I must have offended a lot of people when I was younger) while in other countries, it's fine, and even expected, for non-intimate people to get close to each other.

Or, as I've learned in Linguistics. Intended message vs. perceived message. Perhaps someone means to say something with all whole sincerity, but for whatever reason(usually interference, and in the case of the Internet, the interference can be the fact that tones of voice don't exist), it's perceived to be mean or smartassedic(pr: smart-acidic).

So really, who's at fault? Why? Humans are all different and everything is perceived differently. That's how witnesses of a car accident can sometimes have different stories; they're not necessarily lying, so much as they saw things differently. If you see one vehicle smashed against the back end of another one, what do you automaticall assume? Someone read-ended the other. What if the foremost vehicle BACKED INTO the rear one? You might laugh and think who's stupid enough to do that, but who's stupid enough to tailgate, too?

Yeah it can still be wrong. If you want to get technical about it. Let's say I was taught that killing was all right. I don't believe it is wrong. Should I be allowed to continue doing it? No of course not. But that's an extremist view.

If you do wrong and you didn't know. It's not really your fault. It can be the fault of those who taught you it or the fault of however you've come to percieve things around you. But a simple mistake one that is simply that, a mistake is of your own fault. You can't really blame that on anything else nor always help it. Humans aren't perfect they are bound for error. I think it's the resposibility of other to help a person realize their mistake though and help correct it instead of just ridiculing a person for their mistakes. But yeah it can go either way but don't let mistakes worry you too often. Just don't be foolish and let ignorance make the same mistakes over and over is what I always say.

For the military thing, if Person B is the only source of information about the topic Person A wants to know about then it is mostly Person B's fault for the actions Person A takes, depending on what Person A does with the information, and the type of situation, sometimes its all Person B's fault. But if Person A has other sources than Person B then some of the blame gets shifted to Person A.

Perhaps we should use names...like Bob and Jim...so my brain hurts less.

Also, in the case of upbringing, yes, children can be excused of some wrongdoing if their parents raised them badly, but not that much. Eventually you have to start taking responsiblility for your own actions, and fess up for what you've done.

In the military situation, if Person A (General Bob - the title should aid identification) should know better, such as if the information is highly suspicious or unlikely, then some responsiblity lies with General Bob. If, however, Person B (Jim) is someone that General Bob trusts implicitly, or the false information seems very likely, then all of the responsibility lies with Jim. Note, however, that this pre-supposes that General Bob has no way of acquiring corroboration for Jim's information. If he does, and the information is important, then General Bob has some responsibility either way.

I think with the A and B situation. People in authority are still responsible for the actions of the people below them. If you recieved information from source B that wasn't up to par and you act on it, then you are responsible for your actions. Person B may also be held accountable. But if you're going to be in charge you're hopefully not so gullible to act on bad information. Either way mistakes will be made, and people will have to deal with the reprecussions.

As far as parents raising their kids. There's a certain point in everyone's life where they come up with their own ideas about what is right and what is wrong. And many times they end up thinking very different from their own parents regardless of what they were taught. If a kid is caught pick-pocketing blame the parent yes, but an adult who spent their childhood stealing, is still an adult with a mind of their own and ability to control their own life and therefore are responsible for their own actions.

When it comes to other cultures and making mistakes. Really what is needed here is a ALOT of patience and understanding on BOTH sides. If I had no patience I wouldn't last five minutes in a family gathering with my in-laws. They being korean and I'm pretty much just american. They do things a bit differently, but we learn from eachother and we get along pretty well despite being very different. Anyone who expects you to go to their country and do everything their way is highly unrealistic. If I go to another country where it is customary to bow to Royalty, I am not obligated to bow, because that is not my custom, and I am not one of their subjects. I may do it as a sign of respect for their tradition but thats all that is.

The discussion about right and wrong never seems to stop though it's the oldes thing in this history of ours. That discussion is ever changing and is extremely complicated even to those who don't care about it. Not to me, however, as I don't believe in right or wrong, good or bad. World isn't black and white and never will be, or at least I hope it won't. I mean, is there any proof of the existence of right and wrong? I highly doubt it.

If you don't believe in right and wrong, how do you suggest keeping society intact? If it's not intrinsically "wrong" to murder, shy should we not all murder those people that we do not like?

Ultimately, this argument comes down to belief. As Dragonmaster said, there is no real evidence either way (unless you include survival factors; for a social species of our kind, with many highly individual members, it is generally advantagous to act in the ways that we generally denote as "good"). One can suppose one way, as Dragonmaster does, and believe that there is no right or wrong. It is equally easy to believe, as I do, that absolute right and wrong, do exist, and that it is merely our perception that blurs things into shades of grey.

Tell me, Dragonmaster, why do you say that you hope that there will never be a black and white world? It in no way prevents free will (there may be multiple good options, and multiple bad options. As well as this, one can still choose either way). I would think that a black and white world would be like a clear night to an ancient sailor, the stars clearly visible to chart a course by. At present, the stars are obscured, and only belief, whether secular or religious, can interpret the hazy skies for us.

I agree with DragonMaster on that: right and wrong doesn't exist outside of our heads. Which makes them automatically less than absolute. I've never seen an argument against that opinion that didn't appeal to the fact that it would be more practical if it were/is true.

Conceptions of right and wrong still exist, wether they are an universal value or not. Of course it'd be neater if it did exist, we'd feel less cheated out of some of the value of our values (I would, anyway), but you know what they say about thruth and convenience.

Long story short: if you believe something is right, it's only wrong for other people who think differently, since there's no universal reference for right and wrong. It still won't stop them from mob-stabbing you, I'm afraid. The question was prhased though ("if someone doesn't know something is wrong, is it still wrong?") implies that there is such an universal reference, and any difference's is a result of misinterpretation. I think it works the other way around.

How the heck is that a military example? I've been in the military for a while, and a lie is not tolerated. Disobedience or lies could get you thrown in jail. You simply DO NOT lie, cheat, or steal. If something big does go wrong, it is usually the commanding officer at that post that is responsible because he/she allowed something to go wrong, didn't stop it, and didn't report it. This is an important rule of thumb: You can delegate a job to a subordinate, but you cannot delegate that responsibility. If I gave a job to someone and he screws it up, I am responsible. It's like this all the way up to the commanding officer.

The other example. Every culture in the world has the same basic rules of morality: Do not steal, do not murder.... It wasn't a coincidence that it happened this way. We have chemical processes that go through our brain when we lie that makes us feel bad about doing it. Every human has an inborn understanding of what is right and what is wrong (for the parts of life that are serious. Don't knit-pick with white-lie questions and absurd situations). You may be raised to kill, but you will still have that basic empathy that is stuck in our DNA, "Hey, I wouldn't like this if someone did it to me. This has to be wrong." You are still responsible for your actions.