|
Point one: you should not group blackness illegality and wrongness into one group. They are dynamically different (see end). Is it wrong to kill babies for fun, or is it wrong to have fun killing babies, or is it just wrong to kill your babies, or babies of your own species. Why is it wrong? Because you’re killing babies? Or because you’re doing it for fun? If you make a statement such as “It is wrong to kill babies for fun” without specifying when or where or what part of the statement is most important, it is of course true, due to the undeniable probability that there is an instance when it is true. Such as in the context of an evangelist Christian. Something becomes “different from person to person” only because the circumstances of that person are different. It has nothing to do with the actual person beyond the implications of their personality (i.e. a selfish person vs. a selfless person). There is a finite answer for each person in any situation. When we say something is an accepted truth, it only means enough people have the same answer that we call it one. So yes, there is a definitive right and wrong, but it is determined not “yes or no” but by “yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no” combinations. Kind of like computers and hex. Ah belief. Belief is neither true nor false. Its only a guess, which, because it is believed, cannot be proven. Rest assured that until that happens, your beliefs are quite safe, if very secure(or solid). Frankly, the less disprovable a belief, the more faith you can safely put into it. Truth is completely elusive to the human mind (at present). Therefore, the truth, if it exists, that you are asserting, cannot be know. What can be know is very very high probability’s. But that’s much to static a statement for morals. Morals have nearly no concrete basis except for human instinct (emotional (i.e. cognitive) and physical). Now we get into insanity. For the sake of clarity, sanity is the ability to relate effectively to the physical (and in some cases social, which is decidedly emotional but still relatively stagnant when compared to the individual) world around said person. Now, an insane person does not relate effectively, but in the nature that they do, their answer is in fact correct. Just not useful to anyone but them, and in many cases, not even them. The problem with the example you gave is that the reason for said belief W is not defined. Caroline will have reason Wo, but Suzy will have reason Z. Wo would be the effective reason, the one derived from observation that is perceived by others to be correct, and proves effective, where Z would be the one derived from her insanity (which inhibits the ability to make accurate observations, but in the context of Suzy’s mind would be quite accurate, other wise she would not have come to said conclusion (this is based off of my perception of human nature, which has yet to be disproved despite constant effort)). If ~P is W, then Suzy, in relation to her mind (I), is correct, but Suzy, in relation to the acknowledged physical world (R), is obviously incorrect. When there is no physical basis (R), such as in the case of morals, beyond social or emotional concreteness, then Suzy and Caroline both become correct, because Caroline has only I to go on as well. The validity of their minds in relation to R makes Caroline’s belief more plausible, but Caroline could simply have an insanity(or belief) that does not affect her relation to R, such as a religion. The argument needs to operate under the premises that P related to the argument. Otherwise the logic is akin to believing the world is actually nothing at all because I cant prove it is something. Lets say “perceived truth” or “truth” is something that can be agreed upon by sane people to be true. The Laws of physics are a truth. Things like the laws of physics have a primarily R factor. If their I factor should exceed their R factor, they can no longer be called a truth. Every statement has an I and an R factor. If R exceeds I, a perceived truth can be established to the degree that R>I. If I is greater than R, no truth can be established. Morals have a very small R factor and a very large I factor. The statement that “not true” is the same as “false” is flawed. In order to be either true or false it must be proved or disproved, respectively. Morals cannot be disproved any more than they can be proved, there for they are neither. In the case where a moral has an R factor, such as in the presence of a police man, Morals now can be called truths, and can be proven or disproved. Killing babies for fun in front of a police man is wrong and false because you are now going to die, which is bad unless you’re insane. But killing babies for fun when you cannot be caught has no R factor, and is then dependent upon I factor, which is neither true not false in the real world, only the psychological. The psychological world is determined by the individual. That the individual often defines the I world based on information from the R world does not mean that I with an R derivative is more truth than and I without, it just makes it more likely to have and R factor when normal circumstances are given. It is rare that there is a situation where all R is removed, and thus it is rare when the I world has no relation to the R world. Illegality is R+I, moral is I and black is a color I am rather fond of. To reiterate, Morals are only good or bad (i.e. factual) when they have consequences. There is your grey-looking-but-actually-not-grey area. | 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
storm_daughter's journal
blank
sleepy
anxious
clever
a little high on painkillers
Hormonal
thoughtful
sore
I like flowers