Hello all,
What is right and what is wrong?
A fly trapped in a spiders web. If you save the fly the spider starves to death. If you allow the spider his meal then the fly dies.
What is right and what is wrong?

A very simplistic example, which has no moralistic tense in the absense of God... ask: What is in consonance with God's natural plan? Is the spider supposed to eat the fly, or vice versa?

There are two alternatives:
(1) Under normal circumstances, where the spider is healthy, I'd say the spider eats the fly (as the spider is designed as the predator).
(2) If the spider is unhealthy, and dying, then the fly eats the spider (as the fly is designed as a scavenger).

God's plan is "right" (designed function enacted at the correct place in sequence), and that which contradicts it is "wrong".

Your question would be ambiguous for lack of specificity, EXCEPT under the condition described: the fly is 'caught' in the web. If the fly is incapable of breaking away from the web, then the fly dies no matter what. Assuming a healthy hungry spider, then the spider will eat the fly - the situation is normal (correct), alternative 1.

In the book of genesis God stepped back from his creative work and said, It is good!

In the new testament Jesus said, Look at the fowls of the air they neither sow nor reap but your heavenly father feeds them.

The book of genesis provides creation with a normal route of management for the continuation of the species that is a predator ,prey symbiotic relationship.

Darwin clearly explained this. He stated that without the predator prey relationship species with multiply out of control and deplete the natural resources and finally would experience a collapse in their kind and at the same time this would limit the recourses of the predator and they would in turn experience a collapse in their species. All species would experience extinction.

Does the leopard change his spots? Was not the leopard created for a specific purpose in mind?

In the response of Jesus we see that this natural process is what God had specifically purposed when he created the birds and the bees.

My opinion : there is no right or wrong. I mean it's depends on yourself how you see that case and how is the situation at that man. Each man have their opinion which depends on their viewpoint.

The difference between right and wrong is just like a paper. You can say "it is right", but i can say "no, it is wrong." You won't find the answer if you just look from your side. you must combine all opinion, then pick the good thing from your conclusion. Finally you will find the right from your idea.

That's why human made law and religion, to become the wall that separate the right and wrong

Define "good" and "bad", from the standpoint of your self-appointed position of judgment.

Right is letting Nature take its course and not interfering because of humanistic concepts like morality.

I don't know whether you're a Christian believer. If you are, then you can adopt the following rule: wherever it is you want your thought to take you in your quest for an answer to this or any other "hard" question, if the Scripture doesn't go there, don't you go there either. A great many people believe that we humans have some sort of "innate sense" of right and wrong, good and evil; or they seek answers to the question you asked by constructing elaborate metanarratives--metaphysical systems, ground in "reason," "science," "natural law," or the nature of ultimate reality. All of these are alike in that they're all useless. Either we have to accept revelation as the sole source of knowledge of transcendent reality, or we have to confess our ignorance of such things, and accept the melancholy conclusion that we're all alone, self-reliant. But self-reliance doesn't warrant the inference of self-sufficiency. What we do know (because it's a matter of direct experience)is that we're free, and wholly responsible for our own destiny and moral decisions. Yet we all know that as human beings, we're not up to the task. The result is anguish, from which we spend a lifetime trying to escape. But unless one acknowledges a transcendent reality, specifically the God revealed in Scripture, there is no escape. Human existence in itself is utterly devoid of meaning. In short, nothing justifies it, or anything else that exists. As Heidegger put it, "why are there beings rather than nothing?" This is the question which follows us like our shadow, and from which the only escape is a retreat into what Sartre calls "bad faith."

Sartre correctly observed that "life begins on the far side of despair." But this is only to say that "life" doesn't begin at all, because there is no far side of despair. There's only more despair, an ocean of despair without any hope of sighting land. And, like a ship caught in a doldrums, we're lost in it.

Needless to say, most people who think of themselves as Christians don't think of their religion in this way, as the only alternative to despair and emptiness. And this is why most institutional religion is but another form of distraction, inauthenticity with a religious veneer. Religion is just one more thing on their agenda, among work, social relationships, family, entertainment, etc., just one more thing they DO. God fits into a particular niche, like a picture on the wall, to be admired from a distance, but which otherwise makes no claim on them. They want to do their ritual obeissances to religion one day a week, but the rest of time they simply want to "get on with life" without being encumbered by questions they don't know how to answer. What they fail to understand is that they have no "life" to get on with, only bare, anomalous existence. In short, what most think of as religious faith is bad faith.

Again, if you're a believer, and you want to delve into these questions (or the one you asked), I suggest that you read Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Kafka, for a start. I've learned more from reading them than I ever learned from reading any traditional or contemporary theologian. And it goes without saying that you should read Scripture, and ask yourself whether it answers the hard questions which you want to ask. If you don't want to ask them, then throw your bible out the window. It can't possibly do you any good. If you're looking for some neat, tidy system which answers all questions, and into which everything "fits" with no danglers and nothing left hanging, you'll never find it, because it doesn't exist. If you read Scripture for the message it conveys, you'll be more perplexed than you were to begin with. And that's good, because it drives home the realization that humans are wholly dependent on God, and can do nothing to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Take God out of the picture, and you're left all alone in a universe that cares nothing about you or your hopes and aspirations. Some people who opt out of faith can live with that; most cannot. So they set about to construct magnificent edifices in an imagined no-man's land between faith and despair--edifices that begin to crumble as soon as they are created.

...no option for me to delete my comment, only edit or save... erase, erase, erase...

What is right and what is wrong is in the eye of the beholder, as far as man is concerned, because of the fact that he has been granted with the attributes of Intellect and freewill. By applying an example from the irrational realm of beings, there is nothing right or wrong. Everything is amoral and survival.

But of course, you are referring to man. In the realm of man there is no evil or wrong. Everything God created is good. Only in the first chapter of Genesis the word "good" is pronounced seven times. And according to Ecclesiastes 12:7, God created man straight but he, by ill-using his freewill, degenarated and created evil, albeit on a temporary basis.

But then again, what is right and what is wrong? Everything is good and right. To be wrong or evil, it takes one to go out of his or her way. As it were, to go against his nature.

If you are supporting the notion of a God, who made all things (identifying them as "good"), then your comments are confusing...

1. WHEN GOD CREATED the items listed in Genesis, they were made *exactly* in the form intended. And, He called them "good".

2. Man did NOT create evil. Evil existed BEFORE Adam and Eve were tempted. The temptation preceded mankind's disobedience. Lucifer (now referred to as Satan) had already committed the act of disobedience through his pride - believing himself worthy to be considered equal to God. He and the other angels had the same free will. The created was aspiring to equality with the creator.

3. "Right" is being in agreement with the intentions of God (living by the rules He set up for the universe and our part in it). "Wrong" is being in contradiction to the intentions of God - He passed on a whole litany of Laws to the Hebrews on what He considered "right". If mankind transgresses these, they are "wrong"... Because of God's dedication to Truth (and consistency which attends it), He permits nothing which is imperfect (false) to remain in His presence. You remember the expulsion of Satan and his follower angels from heaven? The corrupt were not allowed to be in heaven with the "right"eous.

There is "right" and "wrong", and God Himself defined them. Any attempt by mankind to redefine them is going to meet with catastrophic punishment.

Now, as far as mankind being "good" or "evil", there are mixed signals. As the apostles admonish believers, the transgressing person is not "evil" but only the acts of disobedience (for which believers are supposed to counsel and encourage the perpetrator to reform)... Here's the kicker, though - God refers to Himself as Truth. This is accomplished only by His thought, word, and action being consistent in truth...and being "good". The human is viewed as a victim of "evil" (Satan), and therefore not "evil" in and of himself (but only in acquiescing to temptation).

They are insects which have their own rights and wrongs, and we are human beings.
What about this- Is it right to kill someone in order to save someone else?
Organ donors are not dead, they are all alive.
see facebook wall/page, and /or look it up on the internet.
There are doctors trying to enable the public have fully informed consent. If you were told that you would be still alive and responsive as an organ donor, would you tick a box asking if you wanted anasethetic just to be on the safe side?
In the UK, a doctor gained organ donors anaesthetic, but in other countries they do not get it.
Is this right?
I don't know how old you are, but anyone over 12 can say they want to be an organ donor. You all have a right to fully informed consent and to choose anaesthetic. Make sure you get this right.

I like to keep it simple. If it violates the Mosaic Law, which is the Law that Jesus said was eternal, and that not one dot or stroke could be changed in it, and whoever followed it was great in the kingdom of heaven — then that violation is evil. If something follows the Law and Prophets, then that is good. If I am not sure, then there are ways of 'inquiring of God' for some personal direction.

The Law is not some arbitrary code that is imposed on us. The Law is what is in everyone's best interests, always; that is, you just can't get better than the Law; so anything else is inferior.