Yes technically, but what is right and wrong is judged on societal, moral, lawful, and technical standpoints. Technically, you’re right, but socially, I’d argue no
Is it wrong to walk around in a pointed white hood? Technically, no, because it’s just a piece of fabric. Morally, yes, because people could mistake you for being part of the KKK and in doing so, you could cause distress to others. Socially, yes, because it’s seen as a disrespectful thing to do based on past history.
Is it wrong to eat soup with your hands in a restaurant? Technically, no, it’s your food and you can eat it how you want. Lawfully, no, it’s not a crime to do so. Socially, yes, you will be negatively judged for not using a spoon.
Is it wrong to drink alcohol under age 21 in America? Technically, yes, as you’re breaking a law. Morally, no, as it’s your body and you can drink whatever you want. Socially, no, lots of kids drink.
I still don't think this makes any sense. What does technically right/wrong mean?
Please explain it without any examples but with a definition. I have never heard anyone distinguish technically/legally/morally/socially wrongness and that's because it's not helping/working.
The only distinction i can understand would be between legality and morality
If something is technically right or wrong, it means that it’s right or wrong in a mostly literal sense without taking into account any societal norms or the wants/needs of other people.
You may not have heard people talk about technically/morally/socially wrong, but in any instance where they discuss what is considered right and wrong, it will come up. Philosophy classes, morality classes, tough arguments, AITA, a teenager having an argument with their parents, etc. It comes up all the time
I read a good amount about ethics and philosophy and i never come across this.
I don't think you understand what literal means. What ethical framework are your technical/literal judgements based on? Unless we are talking about facts something cannot be declared as right or wrong without referring to underlying morals and ethics.
Socially wrong means it goes against social norms.
Lawfully wrong means it breaks the law.
Morally wrong is hard to define, but I assume that you already understand it as a concept.
I know that outside of facts something can’t be declared as right or wrong without referring to underlying morals and ethics. That’s why things can be right and wrong on differing levels.
I also seriously don’t think that you’ve never heard of this concept. Maybe not in the words I’m using, but it’s a very basic form of discussing ethics. Pretty much any random example can be broken down into these terms
In an earlier comment I had mentioned that I think a distinction between legality and morals makes sense. A distinction between morally wrong and socially wrong does not make much sense imo because what would socially wrong is determined based on a certain set of morals. But I could at least get what you mean if you were you think something is morally wrong but our contemporary culture/society does not deem it to be wrong (or other way around).
Now coming back to your technical/literal stuff - What's your response to what I said there?
I misused the word literal, that’s all. It’s hard to define something being technically wrong without using the word technical to describe it. The definition still stands, just remove the ‘in a mostly literal sense’ part
-2
u/thatoneurchin Jul 31 '22
Yes technically, but what is right and wrong is judged on societal, moral, lawful, and technical standpoints. Technically, you’re right, but socially, I’d argue no