Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Yes. I think there are wrong ways to live. First of all, not living according to the laws of your state. When you do so, you are not respecting other's rights. Then, police and courts should take care of.

For an ethical point of view: we can be agree that there are some wisdoms to live a "better" life than others. Basic principles as "do not take drugs when you are young" "don't get involved in problems" "be careful who are you hanging out with" etc... These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. Don't you think?
So yes, I think there are some "wrong" ways according to law and philosophy. These branches help us to, literally, catch a "better" way to live.

These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. Don't you think? — javi2541997

Absolutely, but the question is, is safe the right way to live? You make a good point, I mostly agree with what you are saying, good and bad are terms determined by the general public, however I'm arguing that good and bad should be determined by the individual not the masses, such as if a person wanted to live fast and die young, is it morally wrong for them to do so? I know that societal rules have a general purpose in keeping order and values and such, but if someone wanted to live a fully hedonistic life, why shouldn't they?

I understand that there are morally reprehensible things an individual can do, especially to another human being, however I supposed I'm narrowing the argument down to lifestyle.

I'm arguing that good and bad should be determined by the individual not the masses — Jake Hen

I wish it too but it looks like humans do not know how to live in loneliness. This is why masses take part of it. We tend to live in groups or communities, then, these ones need some kind of rules that can even being imposed on others.

I do not see it as impossible to live in your own but it is one of most difficult things. Can we by only ourselves, thus, our criteria about what is good or bad? I mean, this concept but just to our loneliness, not necessarily sharing it with others

I know I would consider multiple ways of living horrible and grotesque, but morally wrong? Probably not. — Jake Hen

What sort of 'horrible and grotesque' ways of living are you thinking of that would not pose moral problems?

Some people do live horrible and grotesque lifestyles, and there generally are consequences for other people. I'm not thinking of the comic Addams Family, more like The Godfather.

Maybe there is a categorical imperative to NOT live horribly and grotesquely?

. This criteria is not only dependent on the culture and practices of a given region, but also individual truths and values. — Jake Hen

Therefore...

I believe there is no definitive "wrong" way to live. — Jake Hen

Take a close look. See how you say there are criteria that decide what is wrong, and yet conclude the there are not any such criteria?

The hidden assumption is that your regional culture and practices, and your own truths and values, are not definitive.

So if your position is to stand, you need some additional argument.

I'm narrowing the argument down to lifestyle — Jake Hen

This approach will definitely not avoid moral reprehensibility. "Lifestyle" involves choices that affect others in material ways.

I love a rich green lawn; I like tropical flowers massed in large well-watered beds. I like to swim outside in my own large pool. I live in an area subject to a severe long-term drought. The state, county, and city all are inforcing stringent water conservation. Lucky for me, there are three houses next door that are 3/4 completed and are sitting idle. Water service was provided. I'm using water from the three houses to keep my lawn and garden green and my pool full. Yeah, I know that some areas have been forced to depend on bottled water for drinking because their taps are dry. But... a lot of those people came from shit holes anyway, so I'm sure it's not that big a deal for them.

This woman is living a plush and horribly grotesque lifestyle.

This approach will definitely not avoid moral reprehensibility. "Lifestyle" involves choices that affect others in material ways. — Bitter Crank

You make an extremely valid point that I hadn't considered before. Funny story btw, as morally reprehensible as it is.

I believe there is no definitive "wrong" way to live. — Jake Hen

Whether there is a right or wrong way to live will likely depend on 2 things. 1) on whether you believe there is a foundational or transcendent purpose to life. If so, then obviously there is a right or wrong way of living. And 2) most people have a worldview which holds values. If they live in a way those values are subverted then you could say they have gone in the wrong direction subject to their value system. It can often be very hard to live with yourself if you betray your own values.

If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are false then I would say that your lifestyle is wrong necessarily. If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are correct then I would say that your lifestyle is right necessarily. people probably only embrace a way of life because they believe it will lead to beneficial results. If new information is uncovered and we discover that we were mistaken then it makes sense to adopt a different lifestyle.

If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are false then I would say that your lifestyle is wrong necessarily. If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are correct then I would say that your lifestyle is right necessarily. — Average

False and correct according to what though? An individual's beliefs? If that's the case, I agree with you entirely.

False and correct according to what though? — Jake Hen

I'm not sure that I understand your question so I can't provide you with an answer in good conscience.

What would you constitute as false beliefs and correct beliefs?

1) on whether you believe there is a foundational or transcendent purpose to life. If so, then obviously there is a right or wrong way of living. And 2) most people have a worldview which holds values. If they live in a way those values are subverted then you could say they have gone in the wrong direction subject to their value system. — Tom Storm

The only wrong way to live is to be at odds with your values is what I take from this, correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess for example if you needed to solve an equation in order to pay your bills properly but you miscalculated and were therefore unable to do so or if you needed to calculate the amount of crops you needed in order to feed your family but do to some error in your solution you ended up planting an insufficient amount and were therefore unable to do so. I think that mathematical knowledge can be true or false in the way I'm describing alongside some other forms of knowledge.

Thank you for pointing that out, I need to double check what I'm about to post before actually posting it, and maybe have a bit more conviction when arguing a topic. The way Bitter Crank put his argument, I found it hard to support my own argument afterwards.

Only an atheist could ask such a question.

Sorry if I come off as rude, but I'm confused as to what mathematics and true or false have to do with correct or false beliefs.

I doubt I'm the strongest Christian supporter on this forum, I don't denounce the religion in any way, and I personally do believe that there are wrong ways to live, I was simply curious to see what others have to say on this matter.

AH, but would you have spotted Bitter's point if you had not presented the argument here? There's a lot to be said for just putting out an idea.

The absence of "definitive" morality does not lead to the absence of morality. Indeed, it makes the problem of deciding what to do - which is what morality seems to be about - even more difficult, since there can be no "definitive" rules.

You don't strike me as rude. Maybe I just haven't worked out my epistemological axioms as thoroughly as I should have before attempting to answer your question.

I know I would consider multiple ways of living horrible and grotesque, but morally wrong? Probably not. — Jake Hen

Horrible and grotesque is morally good? :chin:

I personally do believe that there are wrong ways to live — Jake Hen

I guess I was preaching to the choir.

The absence of "definitive" morality does not lead to the absence of morality. Indeed, it makes the problem of deciding what to do - which is what morality seems to be about - even more difficult, since there can be no "definitive" rules. — Banno

Well put, it makes way more sense when you explain it that way, because even when I was trying to make my argument, I had to make exceptions to try make a point, because I knew that harming others can't be justified as morally right in any way, which defeats the argument all together. I've only been posting since this morning but its pretty fun, its like sparring but with words lol.

Pretty much, I thought I understood what you were saying at first, which is why I said I agreed with you, but then you argued it was similar to math, which lost me.

I wasn't trying to argue that it was similar to math. I was trying to give you an example of the kinds of things I would constitute as correct and incorrect beliefs and I guess it got a bit convoluted.

It gets tricky.

If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are false then... — Average

...couldn't one find oneself doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason?

Moreover, if you are doing the right thing, would it matter that your reasons were wrong?

I can't think of a situation that would be an example of what you are describing. Perhaps I simply lack imagination.

Giving to a charity because you erroneously thought that you would be able to claim twice the donation back on tax. Does that make the giving to a charity morally wrong?

I really don't know anything about morality.