What is legal and what is right are not the same thing. — T Clark

I agree. Different people have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Which opinion is actually right and which opinion is actually wrong? How do we know?

The worst part for me is the suffering these animals go through - for many it is a living hell. It's disgusting that animal agriculture is still legal. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, the suffering they go through is truly awful.

If you're culture thought the Earth was flat, you probably did too. But surely this doesn't give us grounds to believe that there is "no fact of the matter," or that the shape of the Earth varies depending on which cultural context you are currently in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I totally agree that the shape of the Earth does not vary, regardless of what people believe about it. Morals and laws are different from physical things like the shape of the Earth. Morals and laws are mental constructs which come from our beliefs, e.g. apostasy and blasphemy are considered wrongs in Islam and are punishable by the death penalty in some Muslim-majority countries, while apostasy from Islam and blasphemy against Islam are not considered wrongs in Western countries and are not punished.

Morals and laws are different from physical things like the shape of the Earth. Morals and laws are mental constructs which come from our beliefs,

Different how? Are scientific theories not "mental constructs?" What about understandings of history? Now if morals are "mental constructs" what causes them? Presumably, they do not spring from the aether uncaused into our minds fully formed, but have causes that lie outside of us. But this makes them, at least in this respect, like scientific models and theories, no?

e.g. apostasy and blasphemy are considered wrongs in Islam and are punishable by the death penalty in some Muslim-majority countries, while apostasy from Islam and blasphemy against Islam are not considered wrongs in Western countries and are not punished

Right, behaviors and norms vary. But this is true as relates to all sorts of factual claims. With the advent of germ theory, some parts of the world started to boil their water to sterilize it in order to curb outbreaks of infectious diseases. Other parts didn't, and recommended other procedures to try to fight epidemics. Norms and public policy varied based on what was thought to be best, the same as is going on in your example. In some places, young Earth creationism is taught as the origin of the world. In others, the narrative explains that the world is 4 billion years old and that life slowly evolved on it over billions of years. This is a question of fact, and yet norms about it, what is taught, etc., vary by time, place, and culture in much the same ways that laws and moral beliefs vary.

agree. Different people have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Which opinion is actually right and which opinion is actually wrong? How do we know? — Truth Seeker

Here’s how I see it - this is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

This is how Emerson put it in “Self-Reliance.”

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

Anyhow, I believe the correct response here is: "There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - William Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 5, "Hamlet". :smile:

Different how? Are scientific theories not "mental constructs?" What about understandings of history? Now if morals are "mental constructs" what causes them? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Different because scientific theories, e.g. the theory of gravity, are about something physical outside one's mind. You can measure the gravity on Earth and measure the gravity on the Moon, etc. You can have delusional beliefs about physical objects, e.g. believing that the Earth is flat, but these beliefs won't change the shape of the Earth. Morals and laws are psychosocial constructs. You can believe that blasphemy is wrong and should be punished by the death penalty. There is no objective measure of right and wrong in the universe, the way we can objectively measure the gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

Our understanding of history is selective because history is written by the winners and reflects their agenda rather than objective truths. For example, the New Testament makes extraordinary claims about someone called Jesus e.g. he was born of a virgin, he is the son of God, he did miracles, he was crucified and was resurrected. Christians believe that the Bible is true, while atheists consider the Bible to be fiction.

Our morals and laws arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Thank you for your reply. I will think about what you quoted.

That's a great response!

Your original question was: "Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right (e.g. it is right to save and improve lives) and something is wrong (e.g. theft, fraud, rape, robbery, enslaving, torture and murder are wrong)?"

But here:

Different because scientific theories, e.g. the theory of gravity, are about something physical outside one's mind... Morals and laws are psychosocial constructs.

aren't you presupposing the answer to this question. It seems to me to get close to: "Facts about morality are different because morality is only in the mind." Or, "moral anti-realism is true because moral anti-realism is true."

There is no objective measure of right and wrong in the universe, the way we can objectively measure the gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

There is no objective way to measure pleasure or pain, nor consciousness itself. Are these illusory too? Are the only things that exist that which can be measured (presumably quantified)? Yet if nothing really exists except for that which can be quantified, then it would still seem that the illusion that such things exist must itself truly exist. For surely we experience values, beauty, pleasure, etc. And yet is "illusion" something that can be quantified? If not, then we must reject the idea that morality, beauty, etc. are illusions, and must simply say that most of our experiences aren't even illusory, they are nothing at all.

Our morals and laws arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Ah, well the things you've mentioned morality arising from are "physical things outside the mind," no? So how does something that is not a "physical thing" (e.g., goodness) arise from physical things? There must be some sort of convertability, or else such an arising would not be possible. But if physical things relate to value in this manner, then it seems to me that there is no reason why value should be exclusively "in the mind." What is in the mind "arises" from the "physical" and so the physical seems to somehow contain, at least virtually, values, etc.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

Anyhow, I believe the correct response here is: "There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - William Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 5, "Hamlet". :smile: — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem with these frequently cited quotes is that they are often treated as a kind of blank check, used to justify all sorts of reckless or extreme views.

Here’s how I see it - this is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

This is how Emerson put it in “Self-Reliance.”

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand those quotes. If they're just saying that we make our choices based on our own conscience then we are bound to admit that that includes Pol Pot and doesn't get us very far in deciding what is right or wrong in society. That said, I also tend to act and not reflect on what is right. I simply follow my disposition and rarely need to think things through. But given that I am situated within a specific culture, society, time, and place, none of my positions are particularly original, intuitive, or brave.

I'm not sure I understand those quotes. If they're just saying that we make our choices based on our own conscience then we are bound to admit that that includes Pol Pot and doesn't get us very far in deciding what is right or wrong in society. — Tom Storm

I think we have had this discussion before. Dealing with Pol Pot doesn’t involve morality, it involves control. Things like that need to be stopped, not because they’re bad but because they hurt people. It’s a society‘s responsibility to protect its members.

Morality, as I understand it, applies to my judgments of my own behavior. How do I decide how to behave? Here’s my favorite quote from “Self-Reliance”:

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.

Imho, "opinions" are usually not "right or wrong" and, in most circumstances, more useless than useful. Btw, sophists concern themselves with "opinion" (i.e. doxa), but philosophers, according to Plato, ought to concern themselves with truth (i.e logos, alêtheia).

Things like that need to be stopped, not because they’re bad but because they hurt people

Yet if hurting people isn't bad, why ought we try to prevent it?

It’s a society‘s responsibility to protect its members.

Even if this responsibility existed, if it isn't good to live up to one's responsibilities (or wrong not to) then I am not sure what this amounts to.

I guess there seems to be two things. Whether it is called such or not, there seems to be a sort of social level morality being invoked, right (i.e., what societies ought or ought not do)? However, at the same time, societies are made up of individuals, and if they do not value this social morality and it has no claim on them then how does it apply?

I guess there seems to be two things. Whether it is called such or not, there seems to be a sort of social level morality being invoked, right (i.e., what societies ought or ought not do)? However, at the same time, societies are made up of individuals, and if they do not value this social morality and it has no claim on them then how does it apply? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I think this is a significant point. How I behave is of less significance than how a society behaves. The law seems to exist because individual morality doesn't help us keep the community safe or protected.

Morality, as I understand it, applies to my judgments of my own behavior. How do I decide how to behave? — T Clark

Do you have a way of deciding whether a government is behaving with appropriate judgment or within an appropriate ethical frame? How does your 'individualist' approach impact upon issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, welfare for poor people, etc.

Meat is murder, but it's also rather tasty. Ultimately, I think that's why it's going to continue to be consumed.

How does your 'individualist' approach impact upon issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, welfare for poor people, etc. — Tom Storm

I don’t see these as moral issues. I see them as policy issues. Do the laws and regulations that address these issues protect and serve the members of society in an appropriate way?

I don’t see these as moral issues. I see them as policy issues. — T Clark

I find that difficult to understand.

Do the laws and regulations that address these issues protect and serve the members of society in an appropriate way? — T Clark

Do laws which allow for the provision of abortion not themselves present a moral position? Are they not, in effect, sanctioning what some would regard as murder?

Questions about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or welfare aren't merely about administrative effectiveness; they rest on moral judgments about the value of life, autonomy, and justice. Even framing them as ‘policy’ decisions already reflects a moral stance.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

What, despite the vast habitat destruction necessary to install the huge acreages of monoculture sustained with petrochemical based fertilizers and toxic insecticides, weedicides and fungicides necessary to feed the human population with grains, fruits, nuts and vegetables?

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right — Truth Seeker

This quote is being taken out of context. Hamlet is in conflict with himself/ his thoughts.
It is a wishful thinking because deep down he is morally perturbed.

This quote is being taken out of context. — L'éléphant

This (if accurate) is likely the most important post in this thread (in relation to what it is that inspired the OP, at least).

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

This is not entirely true, Truth Seeker. All life must consume something, and all life must at its end be consumed. If it were not so, life would choke itself. The most organic of gardeners rely on this; my own garden has a pond to encourage frogs that eat the slugs that would otherwise eat my vegetables. Vegans also kill, and 'natural controls of pests are by no means devoid of suffering, commonly involving being eaten from within by nematode worms or the larvae of some insect. Not to mention the mice and squirrels and rabbits that have to be kept from the harvest by some means or other.

The deer in Scotland have no natural predators, and left to themselves would breed until their numbers exceed the capacity of the land to feed them and having destroyed their own environment, would die en mass of starvation. It is a kindness for humans to control the population by acting as the top predator and keeping their numbers limited. there is less suffering in being shot than starving to death.

This is not to defend current livestock practices, or the overconsumption of meat. And particularly at the moment, I agree that one ought not to eat meat in general, given the choice. But certainly one cannot condemn those obligate carnivores, because they do a necessary job. And the scavengers also do another job of tidying up the creatures that die, and we all die, vegans and carnivores alike.

But what I see is our agreement as to the terms of the moral argument. We agree that truth is better than falsehood, that suffering is bad, and so on. And this is the same moral foundation that motivates the punishment of heresy. If one believes one has the truth of how to live, one ought to defend it from being lost, and ignored. The whole reason for human law, and especially punishment, is to persuade people who are inclined to do wrong not to do it, by making it disadvantageous. And again, it seems that we agree that this is what the law should do. But life is complicated and it is not so easy to tease out the consequences of our actions, including our law-making.

There are regions of the world that cannot produce enough non animal food for the human population. Perhaps we should leave such places wild. But perhaps we can find a place there as herders of reindeer, or buffalo, or goats, and form a sustainable way of life. If there is more life, there must be more death and more suffering, but life is good.

@Truth Seeker

Here's a relevant post from 2022 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/702431

Your original question was: "Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right (e.g. it is right to save and improve lives) and something is wrong (e.g. theft, fraud, rape, robbery, enslaving, torture and murder are wrong)?"

But here:

Different because scientific theories, e.g. the theory of gravity, are about something physical outside one's mind... Morals and laws are psychosocial constructs.

aren't you presupposing the answer to this question. It seems to me to get close to: "Facts about morality are different because morality is only in the mind." Or, "moral anti-realism is true because moral anti-realism is true."

There is no objective measure of right and wrong in the universe, the way we can objectively measure the gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

There is no objective way to measure pleasure or pain, nor consciousness itself. Are these illusory too? Are the only things that exist that which can be measured (presumably quantified)? Yet if nothing really exists except for that which can be quantified, then it would still seem that the illusion that such things exist must itself truly exist. For surely we experience values, beauty, pleasure, etc. And yet is "illusion" something that can be quantified? If not, then we must reject the idea that morality, beauty, etc. are illusions, and must simply say that most of our experiences aren't even illusory, they are nothing at all.

Our morals and laws arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Ah, well the things you've mentioned morality arising from are "physical things outside the mind," no? So how does something that is not a "physical thing" (e.g., goodness) arise from physical things? There must be some sort of convertability, or else such an arising would not be possible. But if physical things relate to value in this manner, then it seems to me that there is no reason why value should be exclusively "in the mind." What is in the mind "arises" from the "physical" and so the physical seems to somehow contain, at least virtually, values, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Morality and laws originate in the mind and get written down for others to read. If I didn't have my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I wouldn't be a vegan. I consider veganism to be much more ethical than non-veganism, while non-vegans see nothing wrong with being non-vegans.

Genes, environments, and nutrients are physical things, but experiences are mental things. Without the right genes, environments and nutrients we can't get to having experiences. For example, if my human genes were replaced by the genes for apple trees, I would no longer be conscious because apple trees are not conscious.

You can observe brain activities corresponding to pleasure, pain and even consciousness on functional MRI scans. Pleasure, pain and consciousness are not illusions. However, we can't yet experience the pleasure, pain and consciousness of another sentient being with current technology.

Here's a relevant post from 2022 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/702431 — 180 Proof

Thank you very much for the link.

A vegan diet requires significantly less land than an omnivorous diet, as livestock consume large amounts of crops and pasture that could otherwise be directly consumed by humans. Shifting to a vegan diet could reduce global agricultural land use by as much as 75% because land is used much more efficiently to grow plants for direct consumption than to grow crops for animal feed. Animal agriculture, in particular red meat and dairy production, is the largest contributor to agricultural land use in omnivorous diets.

Why Vegan Diets Use Less Land
Inefficient Food Chain:
Animals convert plant-based food into meat, dairy, and eggs, but this process involves significant energy loss at each step of the food chain. This means a large amount of land is needed to grow crops for animal feed to produce a relatively small amount of animal products.

Direct Consumption:
A vegan diet avoids this inefficiency by consuming plant-based proteins like legumes, grains, and soy directly.

Imho, "opinions" are usually not "right or wrong" and, in most circumstances, more useless than useful. Btw, sophists concern themselves with "opinion" (i.e. doxa), but philosophers, according to Plato, ought to concern themselves with truth (i.e logos, alêtheia). — 180 Proof

What is opinion and what is truth? "Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism." Is this statement an opinion or is it the truth?

Assertion without argument or evidence – an opinion.

Assertion without argument or evidence – an opinion. — 180 Proof

Thank you for explaining. Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism because it reduces suffering and death by a massive amount. Non-vegans cause suffering and death to 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Now that I have provided argument and evidence, is it now the truth?

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries?
— Truth Seeker

This is not entirely true, Truth Seeker. All life must consume something, and all life must at its end be consumed. If it were not so, life would choke itself. The most organic of gardeners rely on this; my own garden has a pond to encourage frogs that eat the slugs that would otherwise eat my vegetables. Vegans also kill, and 'natural controls of pests are by no means devoid of suffering, commonly involving being eaten from within by nematode worms or the larvae of some insect. Not to mention the mice and squirrels and rabbits that have to be kept from the harvest by some means or other.

The deer in Scotland have no natural predators, and left to themselves would breed until their numbers exceed the capacity of the land to feed them and having destroyed their own environment, would die en mass of starvation. It is a kindness for humans to control the population by acting as the top predator and keeping their numbers limited. there is less suffering in being shot than starving to death.

This is not to defend current livestock practices, or the overconsumption of meat. And particularly at the moment, I agree that one ought not to eat meat in general, given the choice. But certainly one cannot condemn those obligate carnivores, because they do a necessary job. And the scavengers also do another job of tidying up the creatures that die, and we all die, vegans and carnivores alike.

But what I see is our agreement as to the terms of the moral argument. We agree that truth is better than falsehood, that suffering is bad, and so on. And this is the same moral foundation that motivates the punishment of heresy. If one believes one has the truth of how to live, one ought to defend it from being lost, and ignored. The whole reason for human law, and especially punishment, is to persuade people who are inclined to do wrong not to do it, by making it disadvantageous. And again, it seems that we agree that this is what the law should do. But life is complicated and it is not so easy to tease out the consequences of our actions, including our law-making.

There are regions of the world that cannot produce enough non animal food for the human population. Perhaps we should leave such places wild. But perhaps we can find a place there as herders of reindeer, or buffalo, or goats, and form a sustainable way of life. If there is more life, there must be more death and more suffering, but life is good. — unenlightened

In an ideal universe, all organisms would be made of energy, instead of matter, and live forever without consuming any air, water or food. We don't live in an ideal universe. I am not condemning obligate carnivores or scavengers. Veganism is not perfect, but it causes much less suffering and death than non-veganism. Please see: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan

Dairy cows: Killed at about 4–6 years old, but could naturally live 15–25 years. They live only 20% of their natural lifespan.

Beef cows: Killed at 9–14 months, though they could live 15–25 years. That’s only 5% of their natural lifespan.

Turkeys: Killed at 12–26 weeks, but naturally live 10–12 years. That’s just 5% of their natural lifespan.

Calves (veal): Killed at 1–24 weeks, but naturally live around 20 years. That’s 3.1% of their lifespan.

Pigs (for meat): Killed at 5 months, but could live 15 years. That’s 2.7% of their lifespan.

Chickens (egg layers): Killed at 14 months, though they can live 10 years. That’s 2.7%.

Ducks: Killed at 7–9 weeks, but naturally live 6–8 years. That’s 2.6%.

Lambs: Killed at 3–5 months, but naturally live 15 years. That’s 2.2%.

Chickens (male, in egg industry): Killed at just 1 day old, even though they could live 10 years. That’s only 0.03% of their potential lifespan.

Deer overpopulation in Scotland isn’t a natural problem — it’s a human-made one. Humans killed their natural predators (wolves, lynxes and bears), cleared forests, and now even manage land to keep deer numbers high for hunting. Shooting them isn’t “kindness,” it’s perpetuating the harm. Real solutions are restoring ecosystems, rewilding predators, or using non-lethal population control like fertility management.