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.
Ethan
But you are right in pointing out that it is hard to identify why there might be objective morality. After all, without the totalitarian solution of God, why should I trouble myself with moral concerns? If you cite the Golden Rule, I can thus reply: why should I care about reciprocity? What is it about reciprocity that makes it an objective quality? Is it due to the benefits that come from reciprocating acts of kindness, and the survival of the human race? In that case, it would seem to me that morality is highly hypocritical since it is built on the foundations of cost-benefit analysis rather than pure morality. Food for thought.
Mark Meijer 100+
No belief about what is right or wrong can be compared to what is "really" right or wrong, because right and wrong exist only AS beliefs. Notice that the original question "how can you still believe in objective morality" already betrays this inability to make that distinction. If morality were objective, it would not be a matter of belief. The fact that it IS a matter of belief, means that it's not objective.
Why trouble yourself with moral concerns? Only because that's what you want to do. Someone who doesn't want to trouble themselves with moral concerns, simply will not do so anyway. Or someone may trouble themselves with moral concerns that are entirely different from yours. Hitler certainly did, like it or not. If he were not following his own sense of morality (twisted as we may consider it to be), and if he weren't convinced of his own righteousness in doing so, he would not have done the things he did. This is what happens when we unwittingly absolutize our beliefs, regardless of what they are. Hitler is a PERFECT example of where the false objectification of morality leads.
As for your assessment of the hypocrisy and fear-based selfishness of all morality, I totally agree. Consider also the difference between moral relativism and amoralism (not to be confused with immorality). Not to adopt one or other prepackaged philosophy, but to take them into consideration so you can make up your own mind about it. And note that there may be a difference between what's true, and what someone wants to be true.
Ethan
Mark Meijer 100+
Why, do you think it's a good idea?