Reply To: Burn Baby Burn
@Strega – “Understanding the distinction between right and wrong – that in itself demands a cohesive definition structure around the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.”
– I agree – I think it’s perfectly valid to use the concepts “right” and “wrong” without defining them, but there comes a point when they do need to be defined.
I define “right” as “when you act, each person affected by your actions is to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them”. This encapsulates both the “benefit/harm” and “fairness” foundations, all of second-personal morality. I think that a good definition of “benefit” is “to increase thriving” and “thriving” can be defined as “a state of physical or psychological health and strength”. The only conflict is between “physical” and “psychological” – what makes someone feel good may be bad for their physical safety, for example. “Thriving” has to be split into short term and long term.
It’s a good question how these first two foundations interact with the others. This definition of right and wrong implies a definition of “human rights” – since each of us constantly experiences an existential pressure to thrive, and this is the most important goal, it follows that human rights must respect this basic goal. So to give someone their human rights means to treat them with the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them.
This respecting of rights can follow through into the other foundations.
