<p>Imagine that thereare only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.</p>
<p>Thats what we call reality shifting. Congratulations, your about to get everyone ****ed at you for trying to change the world.</p>
<p>that's only if you take moral relativism to be true. just because the majority believe something it doesn't necessarily make it ethical. it's not a simple numbers game where you eliminate the people who do not believe in the same beliefs you do. it's almost like saying, slavery in American over 100 yrs ago was morally correct because the majority of people believed in it. that still doesn't make it right. and just to use a more current example, it would be like saying homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals because the majority of people believe it. the majority can believe what it wants, but that does not make them morally correct. in the examples i used, getting stripping human rights from people would be considered morally correct by the societies in which those events took place, but it doesn't make it morally correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's almost like saying, slavery in American over 100 yrs ago was morally correct because the majority of people believed in it. that still doesn't make it right
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Morals are completely opinion. You can't say what's right and wrong for another person, I can't say what's right and wrong for another person. </p>
<p>But if you conflict with the majority's morals, you're going to have a difficult time. Doesn't mean you're wrong though.</p>
<p>Numbers don't mean anything, other than there are a lot of messed up people in the world. Moral value differs depending on the individual, not the masses.</p>
<p>"If he jumped off a bridge, would you follow?"</p>
<p>See what I'm saying.</p>
<p>Jumping off bridges has more to do with conformity and social behavior in groups than with pure morality. </p>
<p>A person who is considered evil won't necessarily follow someone who jumped off the bridge......and a person who is typically described as good may do so if he/she is the type who is (really) easily persuaded.</p>
<p>Thus even though I agree with you that moral value is an individual trait, I think your reasoning might be a bit strange.</p>
<p>I guess cheating and stealing may become morally acceptable. That is what I call the illusion of conventional wisdom.</p>
<p>so basically what that means is, just because everybodies doing something, doesnt mean its right... right?</p>
<p><em>cough</em>religion<em>cough</em>drinking<em>cough</em></p>
<p>someone just took philosophy 101</p>
<p>listen, guys. right and wrong are completely socially constructed. read some foucault. just do it. your lives will be changed forever.</p>
<p>Sorry. I termed it wrong. Morals are usually defined by the majority. Just think about the humans who ate other humans. They though it was right. However, clearly we label them as uncivilized, immoral, etc. Therefore, if everyone in their society believes that cheating and stealing is right then these "immoral acts" will be considered moral hence the Illusion. I am not sure if I a making sense...
I also wanted to say that I don't consider their acts to be "moral" but I believe in this outcome. I also think that based on these morals, they will not last long because at some point they need someone to steal from and thereby, they will eventually change their morals. Good always prevails :) at least eventually</p>