TED Conversations

Scot Wilcox


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.

  • Mar 4 2013: Morality is the differentiation of actions between those that are good and those that are bad.Peace is good and conflict is bad.This is understood universally.As humans the way we interact with others is through our speech and through our actions.If we objectively look at other people that are alone,doing whatever it is that they please by themself,harming no one else,then whatever action that individual does alone is moral,as they are harming no one and there is no conflict.If however we objectively look at other people that are not alone,say two people or a group of people,one can determine that one of those people lying to another of those people has a high probability of causing conflict.This is universal no matter where the person lives on the planet or in which time period that person lived.Telling the truth to others is peaceful and doesn't cause conflict.And if it does it is ultimately not the fault of the one telling the truth.Sometimes others don't want to hear the truth but either need it to be told to them,or need to be told the truth in such a way as to be as unoffensive as possible.Likewise,one can objectively look at others and determine that ones actions towards others,actions that would affect the other person directly,their property,or their path of movement,have to be done with the affected persons agreement.And if not agreement there is a high probability of the action creating conflict.Two people can agree to do whatever together,harming no one else,and because of their mutual agreement and harming no one else,their actions are therefore moral.Whatever it is that they decide to do together.

    Children can't raise themselves so their agreement before actions done of their behalf, is not always necessary. Children should be raised decently.What wouldn't be decent is that which would offend an adult,such as getting beaten,robbed,or raped.

    A society is based on laws.A criminal wouldn't agree to actions done to restrain their further criminality.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.