This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do right and wrong exist?
I'm curious about objective right and wrong. If you believe in God, this is a no-brainer. Some things are wrong, some things are right, simply because God says so and He knows. But if you don't believe in God, can you still believe in objective morality? I personally don't think you can. I mean, what do you base it off of? How do you find out what's objectively right or wrong? (By objective I mean "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." from dictionary.com)
Sure, there's subjective morality. Any idea of right or wrong come up with by a human is by definition subjective. That's all well and good. Problem is that it only applies to people who believe in it and it gives them no authority to proclaim anything as "what we should be doing." Very often everybody disagrees with each other and we don't get anywhere. (Just look at Congress for an example of this.)
Maybe you disagree with me and you think there is objective morality but no God. That's fine. I would like to ask you to answer a question for me though. Let's pick an easy one. Why is rape objectively wrong? Don't misunderstand me, I can't think of a single instance where rape wouldn't be wrong. I believe very strongly that sexual abuse is one of the greatest evils in the world. Why is it evil? If you can answer me without using a God-based or subjective argument, I'll concede the point.
That point is this: Without God, there is no such thing as right and wrong, only the things we call right and wrong. And since nobody can agree on what to call what, we're all in a lot of trouble.
Louise Kyte
peter ezzell
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones"___Marcus Aurelius
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Agreeing on the framework is the difficult thing.
Assuming objective morality only exists if there is a god or goddess is a flawed assumption. A gods moral code is just one more framework. In most cases modern human rights and frameworks that aim to reduce suffering and harm are superior in achieving these aims than Any divine command framework.
Assuming a perfect moral god is just a philosophical cop out. Why assume a god is morally perfect even if it tells you it is? That's where subjective faith comes in.
Susan Bui
In the case of rape, you ask why is it objectively wrong? Let me rephrase your question, when is it objectively right? Some might say for reproduction; we live in a day and age where this isn't necessary. I don't think people need God or religion to know that imposing someone's free-will for personal pleasure and desire for power is wrong.
Tom Eccleston
Felix Smith
The obvious answers to the question you pose is simply the emotional and physical damage that the act causes not only to the victim but to the victims loved ones as well. Or in fact anyone that learns of the incident and feels the empathetic pains. There is also the implications to consider of self-suffering within the attacker who would feel tremendous guilt if they are not devoid of emotion or empathy; and if they are devoid of emotion and empathy then imagine the suffering already bestowed upon them that their mind might close down entirely their ability to feel. It's the over all effect of large human suffering that we can safely determine that rape is wrong. I can't imagine being able to argue it more reasonably or rationally than that.
Francis Chang
this answers your question, you're welcome.
Josh S
I wish people would answer the question if they were going to comment though, i cant even read a legible answer that makes sense until i scroll for like 15 seconds.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I don't really understand that view.
Do you need to assume god decides what is right and wrong i.e. divine command?
What if god is cruel?
Or does right and wrong exist independent of god but only he is smart enough to figure it out?
Comment deleted
Thaddea Thompson
Silence Zhan
Obey No1kinobe 50+
sumber berkat
in this movie, u can know who more better.. Be Atheis or be Fanatic...
if u didnt know what wrong or what true, just ask ur self : Did everyone near u have disturb with all you have done? If the answer yes, so you have done wrong in ur life..Simple
kelly crespo
However I do not think no being a God would make this argument less interesting. And in the other hand it depends on what God you believe in and your personal believes, the bible its not a PG book. I talk about many immoral context, and other holly books as well.
With or without God in the equation I would assume that we would have to give a definition of what is considered "right".
Remember that words are created by man to be able to express ideas.
Joel Dollar
Joel Dollar
People say Nature vs. Nurture? I say they both work together.
Nurture (education in this sense) is necessary for a person to believe a certain right or a certain wrong. They must be taught certain these things.
To be right or to be wrong is not a question of God's presence. We are all God. It is a function of: 'one receiving positive or negative reinforcement at a young enough age for doing what someone-esle-in-charge said to do'.
IT ALL STARTS WITH EDUCATION! The younger you start educating someone, the easier it will be.
Human beings all have a conscience. In my mind the conscience is God. We're not immediately consciously aware of it's mechanisms, but we can all LEARN to be.
We're all 'in a lot of trouble' because collectively our emphasis on education is terrible. That's just because we have not been collaborating as to what is the best for the human race. TED is GREAT for this! It's letting us do what I just said we haven't been doing! Besides the point I know...
If the parents in our society all collaborated, and came together to decide what WAS the right thing for our civilization, and we all decide what we want, we'll be just fine. It will just take a couple of generations before we notice the real change.
Collaboration in education and the execution of such education decides what is right and wrong in somone's mind.
Andrew Thomas
Andrew Thomas
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Jacob Clark
Lets assume (as I do) that religious texts are primarily false but well meaning anecdotes. That would mean that we created them. In this reality, we would also have created the "right and wrong" that some believe to have been divine. As one with no religious affiliation, it is some what insulting to assume that if I see someone being killed, that I only know it to be wrong because you say it is. Or would it make more sense that my internal conscience tells me not to remake or condone atrocities in general?
Right and wrong is an ideal that is developed (developing) with human evolution of intelligence. This theory is supported by how we now see that some things we thought were wrong (biblical or religiously; such as homosexuality) are actually inherently wrong to defy.
Manish Patil
So now if we deny the existence of right or wrong, we will find some other names or terminology to differentiate things in human terminologies. So in my opinion, they are just terminologies we use to differentiate things.
Ed Schulte 50+
only "exist" or "manifest" with in the lower frequencies of consciousness or as Shakespeare put it "nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so"
Dr Eben Alexander the Neurosurgeon who take a journey into the realms of "formless" and returned to write about it said "I could see that earth was a place where good and evil mixed, and that this constituted one of its unique features.
The Doctors observation echo the line from Yates's Crazy Jane .."Fair and foul are near or kin and fair needs foul"
Bharath Nagamuthu
Right and Absence of Right(Wrong) do exists. This is a perfect known mindset of all humans and cannot be changed/debated.
Thaddea Thompson
Thiyagu Jay
There a few fundamental things declared as right or wrong in ALL religions. I don't thing there would be a reason for any to question or change them. For example a man shouldn't want to ask 'what is wrong if I marry my sister ?'. On the otherhand if one asks 'why can't cremate my dead as I can not afford a burial', that could perhaps be a debatable issue resulting in new answers and revelations.
In some relegions (Hinduism for example) the scriptures are believed to have come from the Gods or their incarnations and in some other religions from their prophets. Popes, Gurus or the like have played the role of custodians of the preachings, practices and interpretation. The problem seen in recent times is the number of such Gurus who can provide a correct interpretation of the scriptures have become less. Problems arise when the pretend to know evertihng and give an incorrect interpretation of the 'right and wrong'.
At least about Hindu scripture I can say this: if you read the right ones and do try hard, would get the correct answers, often scientific and practicable. There is a saying :"If you see a stone there is no Dog; If you see a Dog there is no stone" - when you see it as a Dog you forget what it is made of. One need to learn how to see the Dog in the stone.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I can think of good reasons not to marry your sister without relying on holy scriptures.
I suggest the revelations can be assessed as to their moral worth on there practical merit.
Ethan
The risk of misinformation permeating all of humanity is ever present. There was a time when a flat world was considered mainstream discourse. While I reasonably accept that logic must be tempered with various forms of moral teachings (including religious texts), there is nothing conclusive about moral agreement between different religions, however you want to cut it. They could simply be all wrong.
Also, there is no way of knowing when you have achieved the "correct interpretation".
Peace.
Lorraine Owen
Thaddea Thompson
Thiyagu Jay
Ex1: It is right to drive on the right-hand side of road in New York and it is wrong to drive so in New Delhi. As per the practice implemented in those cities, you can drive safe on the RH side of the road in NYC but you get killed in New Delhi as you are expected to drive on the LH side. So a rule or law would have been enacted to implement this ‘right’ behaviour based on the convention followed in that place.
Ex-2: Over a decade back it was ‘less-acceptable’ for a man to travel in shorts or pyjamas on a commercial airline but now none cares if you are dressed casual.
Ex3: Many are okay to eat meat and many others who are decisively against it. Even among those who eat meat, some would go to the extent of killing you if you present a plate full of cow’s meat or pork as it would be against their religion.
Ex 4: One is allowed to marry many girls and for another more than one wife is wrong, because their religions allow it and their governments endorse it. In both cases having a relationship with somebody else’s wife or husband is wrong.
To conclude, the largely accepted ‘rights and wrongs’ are better left so if they help in our lives and amply justified by the past. It is okay to change the wrongs to right or differentiate them according to the user (as in examples 2, 3 and 4) if it does not hurt the social fabric.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Otherwise there would still be slaves and the caste system unchallenged. No democracy or human rights.
Thiyagu Jay
If one group of people have one practice that they consider as right and that too since ages, I feel that, there is no need to seek a change far as it worked perfectly well. There will always be believes or practices of the past unsuitable to the current time which one should try and alter without any guilt attached. Hope this it more clear.
Ethan
Peace.
Thiyagu Jay
To make people in a group follow these ‘rights and wrongs’ would not have been easy to start with. Hence there came into existence the rulers, leaders, hierarchy, law, respect, honor, humiliation, punishment and the enforcement mechanisms. Alternate mechanisms devised for making people easily accept and follow these ‘rights and wrongs’ should have been the God, religion, believes like heaven & hell, fairy tales, ghosts, etc., I believe. This has worked wonderfully in making people follow the community rules and develop amazing cultural systems that contributed to the harmonious lives. These had become part of religious preaching, epics and holy books over a period of time and sought to be preached by holy men / women who became worshipped icons.
A rape or sodomy of a human or similar act are construed wrong as it results in often irreparable hurt to the body, psychology, image and social status of the person. There is no reason to allow anyone consider a rape as a ‘right’ even when the affected says nothing about it.
The ‘rights and wrongs’, established as part of evolution of civilizations, are the fundamental threads used to knit the fabrics of civilizations. They ‘rights and wrongs’ are not established by religions and cultures or Gods but they, as established by like-minded group of people, are the ones that gave birth to new religions, cultures, ethnicities, revolutions and civilizations. I am saying this, despite being very religious.