TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

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.

  • Feb 28 2013: I love this question.
    I believe morality is in itself subjective. It’s a matter of philosophical theories and the way we justify what we do.
    I don't think there's a certain standard of moral laws that we should all follow.

    And since morality is open to any philosophical debates, the only way to find out whether it's right or wrong depends on how well you can defend your conducts—or other’s in your own logical flow—especially in court.

    Nonetheless, I also believe there is and there has to be certain boundaries where we shouldn't cross the line.

    "Why is rape objectively wrong? "

    Because it hurts someone(mentally and physically) so bad against her will.
    As a child, we were told not to hurt someone especially against their will.
    Rape is by far one of the most despicable and diabolical crimes, which means it’s a common sense that rape is evidently wrong.

    What we could call to be "objective" in this case, if you ask me, is the things regarded the most reasonable—not that it’s like utilitarian’s idea that relies on majority’s welfare.
    Thankfully some ethic behaviors are believed to be common sense among people. That’s why we learn moral lessons and get advice from our parents and teachers over and over again. Getting older, some question those moral codes and sometimes change “the moral code”, though.

    Btw, it’s also possible what we consider to be moral might be contradictory what God tells us to do.
    (God ain’t humans. Humans ain’t God.)

    I'm not saying that religion is the answer, but technically there's no such thing as an objective morality in this planet unless we're flawless like God.

    Ultimately, we just need to find a way to live together. Peacefully and truly.
    • thumb
      Mar 1 2013: What if I can show you were rape isn't objectively morally wrong and people actually act it out as a play to enjoy as what they would describe in the very least as being "fun".

      We should redefine what peace is? Because whom are you to tell me what my peace is? See if you think we practiced the Golden Rule as defined as this we could create peace.

      Its reciprocal, if party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex then he/she needs to find party (x) that also wants kinky sex and then the do on to others how they would want to be treated and have some crazy kinky sex. If party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex but party (z) does not want to then guess what you do on to others how you would want to be treated and don't have kinky sex with party (z) Because chances are there is something that party y does not want to do. (maybe party z want to kill some one) All he needs to do is find some one who is willing to die and kill them, if he cant find a party to kill, he doesn't do it. He respects the other person choices as if the are his own.

      So if 2 parties want to kill each other from what they describe as peace or the greatest glory they can do for their god let them do it. It only becomes a problem when one party does not want to kill the other. Or be killed

      Peace is about balance and harmony.... just like nature
      • Mar 1 2013: Hi Casey
        Technically, rape is not a reciprocal thing.
        "What if I can show you were rape isn't objectively morally wrong… "
        Sorry, but your example didn't really convince me.
        "Because whom are you to tell me what my peace is? "
        Exactly. Who am I to tell you what makes you yourself “peaceful”?
        I think those words: "my peace" are quite subjective, Casey.
        What you mean by “my peace”, I think, is for an individual. Not for everyone or for mutual stuff.
        I'd rather say it's "what I desire" or "what I crave for", in this case.
        I don't care whether having kinky sex gives you peace or not, but if your partner doesn't want to have that sex with you, by no means you should force her to get laid.
        'Cause it could be repellent to her—it could make you achieve “my peace”, though.
        "Peace is about balance and harmony"
        Then, the answer is clear. If you define "peace" that way, then, rape—the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse(dictionary.com)—certainly does not belong to "peace" category.
        Then, what you should have said, instead, is living peacefully with others isn’t necessarily a moral thing, if you were going to argue with my last sentence there, “Ultimately, we just need to find a way to live together. Peacefully and truly.”

        And achieving peace isn’t the point of what I was saying, btw.
        (IMHO, I think you missed my point there.)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.