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.
pat gilbert 50+
A higher level of survival for the greatest number is right and a lower level of survival for the greater number is wrong
Mark Meijer 100+
Oh wait, I see, you mean "right for us". Ok then, maybe only we of the richest and most developed countries should kill ourselves so the greatest number of humans on the rest of the planet can survive, instead of starving and slaving to support the few.
Oh no of course you mean "right for some of us". Survival of the fittest, right? Does that include you? Are you the fittest?
Oh ok I get it, you just mean "right for me". Doesn't really matter who survives as long as it includes me and mine.
All more or less reasonable points of view. Which is the "right" one?
pat gilbert 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
Nonetheless I still maintain that what is right or wrong depends on the point of view one adopts. consciously or not. Reasons are always dependent on context. So by definition it can't be objective.
pat gilbert 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
Furthermore, to suppose that survival as such is (or should be) the one overruling criterion of rightness, is itself a point of view, not objective fact. For example, Sam Harris proposes that suffering makes for a good objective criterion for rightness. That too is not a matter of objective fact, and neither is what would constitiute suffering. But let's say we went with that, it would mean the survival criterion has to take a back seat. Because some would prefer death over continued suffering. Who is to decide?
Even to acknowledge that some decision has to be made by someone at some point, is to imply that it can't be a matter of objective fact. Nobody gets to decide objective facts. That's what makes them objective facts. So we can make endless arguments about what would make for decent criteria or solid reasoning or whatnot, and I'm not saying there can't be. I'm just saying that rightness and wrongness don't exist objectively.
They are valuations, and all valuations are subjective, no matter how common or agreed upon. And by the way there doesn't even seem to be all that much agreement on rightness and wrongness, other than some (but not all) of the obvious extremes.
pat gilbert 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
pat gilbert 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
You meant to say that the single thing that all life does no matter what, is survival, and therefore survival is right, right? Of course there are a lot of different ways in which "life" does that. Some eat their young. Some lay their eggs in other living beings. Parasites may kill their hosts. Survival? Yep. Right? Yep. Although it depends on ones perspective, doesn't it. Entire species go extinct to make room for other ones. Which is right? (you still haven't answered).
Even so, survival is a biological directive, isn't it.
"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."
pat gilbert 50+
Which by the way is why people are so hung up on being right.
Survival is about as objective as you can get.
Have a nice day
Mark Meijer 100+
Louise Kyte