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 3 2013: Are you kidding me? If someone came over to your house and killed one of your loved ones for no reason, it would be WRONG. You would know it. You would not have to know whether or not they believed in God or not. You would not have to know if they had mental issues that may (later) mitigate the perps culpability. You would know, as anyone else would, that it was WRONG for them to kill an innocent person.

    Wake up.
    • thumb
      Mar 5 2013: Why is it wrong?

      I agree with you, but why?
      • thumb
        Mar 5 2013: Why do you agree with me? You FEEL that it is wrong to kill an innocent person, as mentally healthy people would feel that it is wrong. We could get into a long philosophical discussion about right and wrong, and about exerting control, and about human rights and all kinds of topics that would attempt to quantify what we know intrinsically. All you have to do is posit the golden rule in any questionable situation - would you like this to be done to you? Or your child? Or your parent? Or your spouse, sibling etc.? That's a good litmus test to help determine what is right or wrong to do. That's why the golden rule has stood the test of time.
        • thumb
          Mar 5 2013: So it feels wrong because we wouldn't like it to happen to us.

          It kind of comes back to instincts, empathy, and feelings then.

          How we feel is how we feel and not necessary universal.

          If someone else feels differently then we are at an impass, unless we have a better defined description of right and wrong.

          For example someone might feel it is wrong for their womenfolk to leave the house, drive a car, show their face. And many women in that culture may feel that this is also right.

          The golden rule is a good starting test, but not sufficient in my view. It also breaks down in some circumstances. I wouldn't like to go to jail for a crime, but on balance think it better that criminals do go to jail.

          I would suggest something like wellbeing would provide a better foundation.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.