How do you know the difference between right and wrong?

You guys took the bait again.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I don't see it as bait, it gives us all a chance to soapbox a bit.

This is complicated to talk about concisely, but morality is a human construct (so it's hard to compare humans to other animals in these respects). This construct has served us because we are one of the most social species on earth. Our moral codes (such as considering first how our actions effect others before acting entirely on impulse) serve our survival.
A lot of people still haven't caught on, but living in peace and cooperation provides us more safety, more prosperity and greater potential for individual survival and the survival of the species than fighting each other does. We translate all this into higher reasoning, but it's really just a survival mechanism.

But I don't think 90sAce has enough strength to pull us up.

We just take the meat, toy with it a bit, then run.

Heh-heh!
Speaking of evil... eBay moderators; evil to the core, every last rotten one of 'em!

Specific moral codes are human constructs, I agree, but I don't believe all morality is a "human construct" - I believe that morality is innate at its most basic level, it's only the specific customs which are human construct.

And I believe there are universal axioms from which nearly all cultures' moralities are based on, with the differences actually being superfluous.

I'm not sure that any of it is innate. Sure there are instinctual things like mothers protecting their young, which is fairly universal even throughout the animal kingdom, but even that innate instinct is not 100% in the human species as we're constantly reminded in news headlines.

But I agree about the axioms from various cultures - as Louis Gosset Jr. said in Enemy Mine, "Truth is truth" - I think this derives from the fact that "wise men" of all cultures (often promoted to religious figures) realize that what becomes clear to anyone with the patience to step back and take a look at mankind, is that cooperation (and all the values derived from the concept) is a lot easier, more effective and a whole lot safer than war, murder, aggression, intolerance, thievery, etc.

Don't tell a Southern Baptist that. lol

If interpreted literally the Bible is very authoritarian.

I'm not of that persuasion because I believe that humans are still the product of their biology, and therefore "individuality" can only exist within the confines of our shared biology.

While people have individual preferences about how to live - I'd say that deep down people want the same thing, because I believe it's biologically impossible to "want" anything else just by our design - we all at the most basic level want food, shelter, and purpose.

Some actions are just better at achieving this than others. Deep down we're really not as "individual" as we'd like to believe.

On the same note, how do you define humans making the world "better" if you believe "better" to be only a matter of opinion?

Maybe I'm not clear on what exactly your views are.

I base my concept of morality on the Bible. Learning the difference between right and wrong is a lifelong pursuit for me. I also think people are inherently evil. A child doesn't need to be taught to lie, cheat, steal, and be mean and selfish. A child has to be taught to tell the truth, share, be kind and compassionate. People usually reserve the word "evil" for more serious crimes like murder and rape, but I think it applies to a lesser degree even to things like lust, greed, dishonesty, etc... things that everyone tends to do.

How do you measure correct behavior then?

People will measure it differently. E.g. If a woman has an abortion some people will decide this is incorrect behaviour, while others will agree that it is acceptable behaviour.

__________________
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

True, but a racist skinhead may say that black people are inferior to whites, or not even "human", while most people would not

Are you saying the racist is just as correct?

No, of course I'm not saying that the racist is correct. You asked how we would measure 'correct'. What I'm saying is that people measure it differently. The racist believes he is correct. He has a different view of the world to me, to you, to a lot of people.

I guess I don't understand your view.

I mean, if you believe that since he's "correct" in his own mind that this makes him "correct". why then would it be "wrong" for him to act on his belief and commit violence against minorities?

How would you teach your kid right from wrong?

No, his being 'correct' in his mind does not make him 'correct' in my mind or in the minds of most people. But he would be correct to someone who shared his beliefs.

What I'm trying to say is that morals are formed over time. People are not just a product of their biology. Upbringing (nurture) has a definite influence on a person's beliefs, morals and their understanding of right and wrong.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

I think it's largely conditioning.

Something that should be noted though is that there do seem to be universal taboos. Most center around certain heinous acts (murder, rape etc).

Reminds me of a time in my life I spent trying to wrap my head around Naive Realism. It sounds simplistic on the surface but you can go down a rabbit hole in a hurry once you start considering the implications.

We live under social contract. I'm sure the kid who shot up the church recently believed his acts to be 'correct'.

Didn't make him immune to the consequences.

This. You can't have and don't need definition for everything, some things are just the way they are. Every situation is also different and with them your feelings.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”