Abnormal, Immoral, and Wrong

[Kyeto-X]

Abnormal=not standard to a population of people
Immoral=deemed an activity or event to be avoided for fear of social consequences from peers
Wrong= An activity and event that must be avoided and removed from society.

Does something being Abnormal make it Wrong?

Does something being Abnormal make it Immoral?

Does something being Immoral make it Abnormal?

Does something being Immoral make it wrong?

Does something being Wrong make it abnormal?

Does something being Wrong make it immoral?

The reason why I am doing this is because a friend and I got into (yet another) about sexuality and the "Right/wrongness" of LGBT lifestyles. And we got caught up in an fight over these definitions. So now I am wondering what these definitions are and how exactly they over lay. Use any examples that you can.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

The definition of abnormal includes more than statistical infrequency but I'll go with the one proposed.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Abnormal make it Wrong?

Possibly depending on the abnormal behaviour in question. For example, would depression be something that needs to be removed from society? No because it doesn't necessarily function to cause harm, whereas sadistic pedophilia would cause immense harm so it should be removed.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Abnormal make it Immoral?

Using the proposed definition of immoral, yes it often does. Turning to mental illnesses, they are highly stigmatized in general and each gives some amount of social consequences.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Immoral make it Abnormal?

Depends on the situation. For example, getting into a fight with friends then interacting with other friends who know of the fight may result in you being viewed in a negative light. However, fights, physical and/or emotional aren't statistically infrequent.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Immoral make it wrong?

Depends on the action in question. For example, greed can result in negative views from one's peers however, greed has a large part in the capitalist neoliberal society we live in. On the other hand, actions such as genocide would be immoral and wrong.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Wrong make it abnormal?

Using the proposed definition of wrong, whatever the behaviour, it must be quite extreme and likely harmful for it to need to be removed from society. Since it is so extreme, chances are it is statistically infrequent, so the answer likely is yes.

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

Does something being Wrong make it immoral?

As above, for something to be wrong in your definition, it needs to be extremely harmful in some way. For example, genocide would be wrong. Although it's tempting to answer yes to your question, it depends on the views of your peers. If they support genocide, then it's not immoral, although typing that statement seems so bizarre.

[Kyeto-X]

Yes, I know that my proposed definitions are not 100% spot on. If you can find other/better definitions, feel free to critique me and replace them

[Xujhan]

I would say that the usage of wrong - in the sense you seem to mean it - and the meaning of immoral are more or less synonymous. I would say that neither abnormality nor immorality necessarily implies the other. Greed is immoral, by most assessments, and everyone is at least somewhat greedy out of sheer necessity. In most cases though, it will be true that immorality is the exception rather than the rule. Abnormality in no way implies immortality though, otherwise Carrot Top would be the most criminal thing in the history of ever.

[Sythan]

If my lifestyle is immoral or abnormal, then I am proud of that. Why? Because I am happy, as the old saying goes "It is better to be hated for who I am, then loved for who I am not".

However, it is difficult to tell because no one can really judge on what is immoral or abnormal or wrong, we all have different views and opinions.

[Epsilon]

I would differ in my definitions of the terms you listed.

Immoral = Wrong, they are synonymous in my book. And they mean an offense against the universal and objective right and wrong.

Abnormal is morally ambiguous. Wearing orange jeans is abnormal but its not wrong whereas killing 25 people is abnormal and wrong. Abnormality can work both ways or remain neutral, it simply means out of the ordinary for a particular society.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Epsilon

I would differ in my definitions of the terms you listed.

Immoral = Wrong, they are synonymous in my book. And they mean an offense against the universal and objective right and wrong.

Abnormal is morally ambiguous. Wearing orange jeans is abnormal but its not wrong whereas killing 25 people is abnormal and wrong. Abnormality can work both ways or remain neutral, it simply means out of the ordinary for a particular society.

How do you justify a universal objective morality?

[Epsilon]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

How do you justify a universal objective morality?

Part of it ties into with my religious beliefs, but I understand that is not persuasive in the slightest for someone who isn't religious. But setting that aside I nevertheless believe there is something inside every human being where we all innately know what is right and wrong, but there may be impediments to that knowledge for many people which leads to confusion and dissension over what is right and wrong. but certain things are so abundantly clear because of the effects we can all readily see.

For example, a philosophy professor of mine once raised the quesiton of whether or not we are taught stealing is wrong or whether we all innately know that it is wrong. Everyone seemed to jump on the bandwagon that we are taught that stealing is wrong and so we come to believe it, but I disagreed and this is the example I used: give a baby a toy, this baby would have to be old enough to have a sense of awareness of its surroundings but at the same time young enough to not have any morals or rules taught to him or her. So once it has the toy and is playing with it, have someone suddenly take that toy away. I think we all know what is coming next...a whole lot of crying. But why is that? I would say that it is because we all from the moment we exist have this innate idea of rightful ownership, and depriving someone of that right (stealing) is something we know to be wrong. The baby was happy with the toy, it was under the impression it was the owner of the toy (even though their understanding of ownership was extremely primitive) and the baby gets upset when something they believed to be theirs was taken away.

In another example, let's say there are two human beings in complete isolation separate from each other. They were never taught morals or rules, and as an experiment they were released from isolation to interact with each other. Human A strikes Human B with a stone. Human B is injured, and that triggers a negative response with in him, and as a result he wants to avoid pain, and if he thinks and uses his reason he would know that other human beings don't want pain inflicted on them either, so he knows it is wrong to inflict pain on people. Granted this scenario necessitates a high enough intelligence to be able to perceive and predict based on past experience, but it also is dependent on feelings of empathy which I believe we all have for one another with exceptions coming in rare cases of mental illness.

Feel free to point out any perceived flaws in my way of thinking here, but I really think there are certain ideas innate to being human that we just aren't able to pinpoint with observable solid evidence and this opens the door to speculation. But as human beings we don't need to be taught how to breathe, or how to eat, or how to sleep. These things are innate to being human; additionally, you do not need to teach a baby how to breastfeed, and this is astounding to me, that this little human being that had been forming in utero for 9 months just happens to know where to latch on to and why as soon as it is born. Stuff like this really intrigues me, and I don't think these innate ideas are limited to biological functions such as the ones I listed but also intellectual functions as well such as the formation of what we call conscience.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Epsilon

Part of it ties into with my religious beliefs, but I understand that is not persuasive in the slightest for someone who isn't religious. But setting that aside I nevertheless believe there is something inside every human being where we all innately know what is right and wrong, but there may be impediments to that knowledge for many people which leads to confusion and dissension over what is right and wrong. but certain things are so abundantly clear because of the effects we can all readily see.

For example, a philosophy professor of mine once raised the quesiton of whether or not we are taught stealing is wrong or whether we all innately know that it is wrong. Everyone seemed to jump on the bandwagon that we are taught that stealing is wrong and so we come to believe it, but I disagreed and this is the example I used: give a baby a toy, this baby would have to be old enough to have a sense of awareness of its surroundings but at the same time young enough to not have any morals or rules taught to him or her. So once it has the toy and is playing with it, have someone suddenly take that toy away. I think we all know what is coming next...a whole lot of crying. But why is that? I would say that it is because we all from the moment we exist have this innate idea of rightful ownership, and depriving someone of that right (stealing) is something we know to be wrong. The baby was happy with the toy, it was under the impression it was the owner of the toy (even though their understanding of ownership was extremely primitive) and the baby gets upset when something they believed to be theirs was taken away.

In another example, let's say there are two human beings in complete isolation separate from each other. They were never taught morals or rules, and as an experiment they were released from isolation to interact with each other. Human A strikes Human B with a stone. Human B is injured, and that triggers a negative response with in him, and as a result he wants to avoid pain, and if he thinks and uses his reason he would know that other human beings don't want pain inflicted on them either, so he knows it is wrong to inflict pain on people. Granted this scenario necessitates a high enough intelligence to be able to perceive and predict based on past experience, but it also is dependent on feelings of empathy which I believe we all have for one another with exceptions coming in rare cases of mental illness.

Feel free to point out any perceived flaws in my way of thinking here, but I really think there are certain ideas innate to being human that we just aren't able to pinpoint with observable solid evidence and this opens the door to speculation. But as human beings we don't need to be taught how to breathe, or how to eat, or how to sleep. These things are innate to being human; additionally, you do not need to teach a baby how to breastfeed, and this is astounding to me, that this little human being that had been forming in utero for 9 months just happens to know where to latch on to and why as soon as it is born. Stuff like this really intrigues me, and I don't think these innate ideas are limited to biological functions such as the ones I listed but also intellectual functions as well such as the formation of what we call conscience.

In general I agree with your assessment, although I don't think the baby example helps your case at all. One doesn't need morality to not want to experience negative things; "I don't want X to happen to me" by no means implies "Therefore I shouldn't do X to others". It might be that people think that way, but simply showing the former doesn't prove the latter.

That said, you are essentially correct in saying that humans have evolved a conscience, nor are we by any means the only species to have done so. However, I don't see how something that is hard-coded into our brains - as you say, part of what it means to be human - can be called either universal or objective. A different race of sentient beings might evolve a completely different set of moral principles. A universal morality would be something Kantian; it would apply to all sentient beings regardless of their natural inclinations.

[Epsilon]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

In general I agree with your assessment, although I don't think the baby example helps your case at all. One doesn't need morality to not want to experience negative things; "I don't want X to happen to me" by no means implies "Therefore I shouldn't do X to others". It might be that people think that way, but simply showing the former doesn't prove the latter.

That said, you are essentially correct in saying that humans have evolved a conscience, nor are we by any means the only species to have done so. However, I don't see how something that is hard-coded into our brains - as you say, part of what it means to be human - can be called either universal or objective. A different race of sentient beings might evolve a completely different set of moral principles. A universal morality would be something Kantian; it would apply to all sentient beings regardless of their natural inclinations.

I see what it is you're saying, but as I mentioned at the beginning of my previous post, I admit my religious beliefs shape how I view this question and leaving those out of it for the purposes of talking on just an observable level can only get me so far in trying to "prove" objective morality, and I would normally use the spiritual aspect to "connect the dots" as it were, because part of my beliefs are that man knows right from wrong as a result of being intimately connected with epitome of good which is in itself a being we call God. But as I said before my religious beliefs are hardly persuasive to someone who doesn't share them and observable evidence can only take us so far because even in the hypothetical example you provided of a different race of sentient beings evolving and each having their own sense of morality would be purely speculative because it can work both ways where what if several sentient species evolved and we all happen to share the same moral code, does that make the argument for a universal morality more convincing? I would say it would to an extent but we really can't say considering examples like that are all hypothetical.

[dr2005]

The "removed from society" bit of the definition of "wrong" makes it sound like you're almost invoking a legal element to it - is that correct? If so, then immoral and wrong are most definitely not interchangeable because law and morality are not directly interchangeable. Other than that, abnormal as defined is similarly not interchangeable with immoral as being not standard to a population does not mean it is automatically something to be avoided - living in a commune would be non-standard behaviour for people living in cities, for example, but whether or not it would have negative social consequences depends upon the specific details of said commune and not the fact that it is a commune per se. (It's a clunky example but hopefully you get the idea) Outside of the issue I raised above with immoral and wrong, whether the two are interchangeable depends upon whether the negative social consequences are themselves sufficient for removal from society to be necessary, which implies societal harm as opposed to negative personal consequences and is a bit more of a grey area. Finally, wrong and abnormal are not in my mind automatically interchangeable as something may be viewed as wrong while still being widespread behaviour (breaking speed limits on roads is one example) and as discussed with the immoral comparison an abnormal action being wrong depends upon its specifics and not merely the fact it's abnormal.

Hope that hasn't come out too garbled - semantics after 11pm isn't always the best thing to try and do...

[Marguerite]

No, no, no, sometimes, no, sometimes.