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.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mark Meijer 100+
The perception of wrongness is, however, absolutely critical to the perpetuation of the human drama, right up there with the illusion of separateness and the certainty of free will. Drama requires conflict. No conflict, no drama. If something isn't wrong, then nothing needs to be made right, which would mean that nothing needs to be done. Heights need not be scaled nor depths plumbed. Wealth and power need not be acquired. Future generations need not be spawned. Art need not be created, nor skyscrapers erected. Wars need not be fought. Religions and philosophies need not be devised. Teeth need not be flossed.
"The belief that something is wrong is the fire under the ass of humanity," is how I explain it to Sarah.
Of course, wrongness isn't entirely imagined. A certain amount of rightness and wrongness is hardwired into the human machine. Hunger is wrong, eating is right; celibacy is wrong, seed-sowing is right; pain is wrong, pleasure is right, and so on. But those are all biological directives, enforceable only within the context of the physical organism, violations resulting in progressively worsening discomfort and possibly death.
Where, then, does wrongness reside outside of our physical organism? And the obvious answer is - nowhere. But if this whole existence thing is to have any dramatic element to keep it interesting, it needs conflict, and so an artificial wrongness must be inserted into the mix:
Fear."
-- Jed McKenna
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
There's actually one thing I don't quite agree with in the quoted text (or only provisionally), which is where it says "whatever is, is right". I certainly agree with it insofar as it serves to make a point, and it's as good a way of putting it as any. In the absence of wrongness in an absolute sense, what else is "what is" other than "right". As in, exactly the way it's supposed to be, for no other reason than that it is what is, it's what's the case, it's what is so. Also, who are we to decide what's supposed to happen, who are we to think we know that what occurs should not?
But ultimately, right or wrong simply doesn't enter into it. The question arises only from our human minds, from conceptual thought. And any answer, any word we use to describe it or any value we place upon it, is meaningful only from that perspective. If earth were destroyed by some asteroid or solar flare or whatever, it would be neither right nor wrong, it would simply be the case. There would be none of us left to rail against it or judge it for value.
edward long 100+
Louise Kyte
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Louise Kyte
Mark Meijer 100+
And it doesn't mean notions of right and wrong don't have their place. Just that it is dependent on context, i.e. not objective. That IS their place. Even if that context is the whole of human society. There is more to "universal and absolute" existence than human society (there's actually nothing "universal and absolute" about human society). It also doesn't mean context doesn't matter. It means context is precisely what matters, when it comes to right and wrong.
So I'm not saying I as a person don't have opinions and preferences, I'm saying they are subjective, not "universal and absolute". This is plain, simple, obvious fact.
Why not a simple yes or no? Because you asked two different questions, and both of them were based on unexamined assumptions. Perhaps you're familiar with the cliche example of asking a defendant: "Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?" It's not actually a yes or no question, but a veiled assertion. You probably didn't mean to do that, but "to be clear" mr. Long, a simple yes or no just wouldn't suffice.
Continued below...
Mark Meijer 100+
- "is it your belief that none of the deeds of Mankind, from the beginning of human history to the end, can be considered universally and absolutely good or evil?"
The answer is no. Firstly, I'm not talking about belief. No deeds, of mankind or any other kind, are "universally and absolutely" good or evil ("but thinking makes it so"). Secondly, they certainly can be (and are) considered all manner of things by all manner of people, and you can consider them any way you like (including "universally and absolutely good or evil"). But that has no bearing on what is "universally and absolutely" the case. Also, the fact that you felt it necessary to qualify "deeds" with "of mankind", already shows how the judgement of those deeds is context dependent.
- "Do you embrace and propagate the philosophy that no human action is anything other than neutral, neither good nor evil?"
The answer is no. It's not a philosophy, it doesn't require to be embraced, and I don't propagate it. It's just my answer to the question of the conversation starter, and to some of the questions that it continuously and inevitably provokes. It's not a problem if everyone doesn't agree. I'm not trying to convert or spread a message. I probably wouldn't last long trying to propagate this even if I wanted to. I'm not that big of a fool. I'm already walking a thin line talking about it even on TED, and to be honest I don't really care all that much to talk about it anymore. So I hope I've finally been clear enough this time.
(if I seem a bit grumpy, I hope you don't take it personally)
Thank you.
Mark Meijer 100+
I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm just trying to remain clear on the actual question at hand. Which is whether right and wrong exist objectively. Despite my endless disclaimers and clarifications, somehow people seem to think that if I don't believe in their objective existence, then I must not have any opinions one way or another. But that's not what it means. My answer is not about me, because the question is not about me!
The question isn't whether right and wrong exist subjectively. They obviously and undeniably do. Someone might be apt to say that I must not have any problem with rape and violence etc. But as a human being, I obviously have opinions and preferences. That said, I would rather not mistake my opinions and preferences for absolute fact. Because that's where a lot of our troubles start. And that's also where they end, should we be willing and able to see that mistake for what it is.
So, you tell me whether I'm sincerely engaged in the betterment of mankind or not. What do you think, could it be beneficial if people would be more willing to set their damned opinions aside for a minute when that is called for, instead of insisting that they have the truth of the matter? I certainly think it would be. In my opinion, that would be "right" for human society. But of course that's just my opinion. Who am I to say what's right.
(continued)
Mark Meijer 100+
If someone bludgeons someone else to death, then that person certainly did something "wrong" within the context of human society, i.e. in our own eyes. But an ant probably couldn't care less. Some alien in a far away galaxy probably couldn't care less. The sun and the moon couldn't care less. The great apes that are all but extinct due to human activity, probably couldn't care less. Indeed why should they? And if someone got bludgeoned to death because a tree fell on their head, we wouldn't say the tree was somehow wrong or evil, would we. Bad tree.
And in case this becomes a debate about free will, let me head that right off by saying that, for the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter whether there is such a thing as free will or not. If anyone want to say that some occurance is wrong only because there is an intentional independent agent behind it, then that means its wrongness is dependent on context. In other words, in this example, whether something was wrong depends on who or what caused it, as well as on who you ask. And in fact, whether it depends on who or what caused it, also depends on who you ask. So it all comes back to the eye of the beholder.
edward long 100+
My answer, what I have CHOSEN to believe, is yes, there is absolute, objective good and evil. Even though some might call good evil, or evil good, the fact remains that certain acts are universally, objectively, immutably good or evil.
Your answer as stated herein ["The question isn't whether right and wrong exist subjectively. They obviously and undeniably do."] is that they only exist subjectively and are based upon human constructs. On that we disagree. Thank you sir!
Louise Kyte
As for the subject at hand, I believe that by viewing this thread in its entirety, you'll be able to see that Mr. Wilcox is a believer, as am I. We believers can sometimes despair of a world so engrossed in secular concerns, pastimes and goals. It can cause us to despair of those left to raise their children in godless homes with no clear notion from one day to the next of what constitutes right and wrong or how to teach it. He feels we're all in a lot of trouble if we don't have God to guide us. This is his real concern. He's worried that the godless will surely ruin things for the rest of us. In truth, they often lead us forward in an ever-changing world which requires new viewpoints. I think that if you can quiet the philosopher within yourself for a bit and bring out the part resembling a thoughtful political leader, we'd all benefit.
Mark Meijer 100+
But that wasn't the question, sirrrrr. And the whole problem starts when we INSIST on confusing our beliefs and positions with objective reality (if there is such a thing). If you are asked to accept anything (and I'm not asking you to), it's not to accept what you consider to be bad as being good, but simply that what you choose to believe is entirely a subjective affair.
There is no NEED to call it objective. You may think that doing so serves some kind of moral purpose or justifies your point of view, or something. But if anything, it does precisely the opposite. Such insistence is EXACTLY what motivates the suicide bomber. He does what he does precisely because he fails to distinguish between what IS objectively so and what he CHOOSES to BELIEVE. Nobody would be bombing anybody if they were willing and able to make that distinction. And you're not doing anyone any favors by demonstrating that you aren't.
- "My answer, what I have CHOSEN to believe, is yes, there is absolute, objective good and evil. [...] On that we disagree."
Then you have answered that your answer is about what you say you have chosen to believe. And you have thereby entirely avoided the actual question. Whether something exists objectively is not a matter of agreement, choice, belief, point of view, opinion, etc. or it wouldn't be objective. It's that simple, and there are no exceptions to this no matter how much you might want there to be. Fundamentalism is the insistence that there are.
Mark Meijer 100+
Q: Do right and wrong exist?
A: I choose to believe they do.
Yeah but, do they? How can it be anything other than obvious that this is NOT an answer to the actual question. The question is not about you, is not about what you choose to believe, is not about what you want to be true, is not about what you like, is not about what you agree with, is not about what you can accept. It's about what is actually the case.
Of course it might equally behoove the conversation starter to also ask himself "does god exist?" with that same integrity, and at least admit to not knowing the answer if indeed he doesn't, rather than answering "I choose to believe he does". But that's another conversation.
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+