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.

  • thumb
    Mar 2 2013: It seems to me that it is easy to point out why an absence of objective morality would be wrong. In essence, that would be the same as saying "As long as you believe you are right, you are right". So if Hitler believes genocide was justified, it would be justified to a moral relativist. No sane person could accept such an immoral doctrine without first being brainwashed with propaganda.

    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.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Mar 2 2013: This is interesting indeed. while the statement is an attempt to be morally objective, it is still morally subjective, right? Because anyone can define their own set of moral axioms, as we have been looking at Hitler. So. Forget about moral nihilism. What about you? Do you think it is a good idea to strive for moral objectivity?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.