Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[thebrucebeat]

If the other society REQUIRED rape or theft, the person would certainly feel out of sorts there.
I think I understand your problem with the "theory" issue.
You don't really understand the scientific use of the word.

"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

theory

  Use Theory in a sentence
the·o·ry

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com

No mention of that theory actually being "FACT."

I'm not too sure how someone can actually "test" the "Heliocentric Theory." Perhaps you can point me towards someone who has. I generally accept that the earth revolves around the sun but this conversation has got me wondering if there is something that scientists are missing. Perhaps the biblical language is more literal than I thought. I've always considered the verbiage to be man-centric but who knows ... maybe there's more to it.

So you would have trouble hurting someone in another Society even if it was the norm there? What that means to me is that your personal practice of "right acts" has more to do with your personal beliefs than it does with society's.

"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.
Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).
"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations."

Scientific theory - RationalWiki

If someone grew up in a society and then was dropped in a different one that was very removed from the previous experience it could be very disturbing. This happens to travelers all the time. The experience of being inculturated over a lifetime leaves an indelible stamp that is very hard to shake. It becomes our paradigm, our worldview. Our imagined person switching cultures would not suddenly shed a lifetime of cultural stamping.
Are you seriously asking that? What is the point you are making? Do you think that if morality is a cultural standard your morals would instantaneously change each time you crossed a border?
With that said, ultimately people create their own morality, often very different from the expected morality of the culture.
I have pointed out many times the believers on these threads who are convinced they are devout yet get very angry if expected to reflect the culture of scripture and the behavior expected of a believer. They are vituperative and vulgar and see no disconnect with their loving god.
So yes, each person, in practice, develops their own morality, and very few find themselves lacking the morality they espouse, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

 

[The Irish Ram]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

 

[thebrucebeat]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

I'm not so sure I agree with your premise.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If Haiti started sacrificing infants to the moon god, the majority of our societies would denounce it. They would be in agreement without conferring with each other about where the others stood on the issue. Where do our social norms come from? Why are they similar?

 

[thebrucebeat]

If Haiti started sacrificing infants to the moon god, the majority of our societies would denounce it. They would be in agreement without conferring with each other about where the others stood on the issue. Where do our social norms come from? Why are they similar?

Because we are all determining what will benefit societies as a whole and we would not see the benefit of the practice. This may be why no one does this. If they did it would be further evidence of how religion can lead to mental instability.
Right now we have two great religions that have beliefs that aren't compatible and for some they are egregious enough differences to commit to violence over.

 

[DriftingSand]

I found this conclusion to a short essay, interesting:

What can we conclude?

One thing is for sure. We will continue to make ethical judgments, but on what basis? Perhaps we can draw the following conclusions:

• If society adopts an evolutionary or utilitarian basis for ethics, there will be less incentive for people to behave ethically, and some will be inclined to unethical behaviour if they can see personal advantage. "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." (Dostoevsky)
• Most people firmly believe in the truth and importance of ethics. I cannot believe that the clear certainty we have that some things are just wrong is compatible with a random, chaotic universe. I feel this is a most compelling argument against a purely materialistic view of life. Bertrand Russell's dilemma is a dilemma for all of us!
• I see no problem in resolving Euthyphro's Dilemma by believing that ethical standards are true like mathematics, and that God conforms to them just as he knows 1 + 1 = 2. The fact that most atheists believe in the same ethical standards as believers confirms this. But God is important for ethics because (a) he is the authority behind ethics so we know what is true, and (b) he provides an assurance that one day those who do evil will be called to account - two things that non-believers cannot be sure of.
• Although right and wrong vary so much over time, and from culture to culture, there is enough in common to argue that the problem is at our end - when we try to avoid difficult or unpalatable aspects of morality. The principles seem to be clear, but we work out the details differently.
• Thus we may have to choose between believing in a god, or in having ethics that are subjective and uncertain. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Those who believe that ethical statements are true and should be followed by everyone have to seriously consider whether this implies that God exists. Perhaps this is a point at which proponents and opponents of moral arguments for God's existence might agree on. Moral considerations give all a reason to examine the proposition that there is a God very seriously. For if there is no God, morality is a more perilous enterprise than if there is.​

The moral argument takes these ideas and tries to demonstrate in a logical way that God exists.

how do we know right and wrong?

It's a challenging discussion. I don't believe that "right and wrong" just **poofed** into existence one day as an amoeba morphed into a gorilla.

 

[DriftingSand]

Because we are all determining what will benefit societies as a whole and we would not see the benefit of the practice. This may be why no one does this. If they did it would be further evidence of how religion can lead to mental instability.
Right now we have two great religions that have beliefs that aren't compatible and for some they are egregious enough differences to commit to violence over.

Interestingly, the most deadly regimes (societies) were ones that omitted God and religion from their systems of governance and were actually antagonistic towards religion in general:

__________________________________________________________
Estimated number of victims

In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois states that "...Communist regimes... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government"[3]. He claims that a death toll totals 94 million[4]. The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

• 65 million in the People's Republic of China
• 20 million in the Soviet Union
• 2 million in Cambodia
• 2 million in North Korea
• 1.7 million in Africa
• 1.5 million in Afghanistan
• 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
• 1 million in Vietnam
• 150,000 in Latin America (mainly Cuba)
• 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that when God is removed from the equation all sense of ethics and good morals fly out the window.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I found this conclusion to a short essay, interesting:

What can we conclude?

One thing is for sure. We will continue to make ethical judgments, but on what basis? Perhaps we can draw the following conclusions:

• If society adopts an evolutionary or utilitarian basis for ethics, there will be less incentive for people to behave ethically, and some will be inclined to unethical behaviour if they can see personal advantage. "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." (Dostoevsky)
• Most people firmly believe in the truth and importance of ethics. I cannot believe that the clear certainty we have that some things are just wrong is compatible with a random, chaotic universe. I feel this is a most compelling argument against a purely materialistic view of life. Bertrand Russell's dilemma is a dilemma for all of us!
• I see no problem in resolving Euthyphro's Dilemma by believing that ethical standards are true like mathematics, and that God conforms to them just as he knows 1 + 1 = 2. The fact that most atheists believe in the same ethical standards as believers confirms this. But God is important for ethics because (a) he is the authority behind ethics so we know what is true, and (b) he provides an assurance that one day those who do evil will be called to account - two things that non-believers cannot be sure of.
• Although right and wrong vary so much over time, and from culture to culture, there is enough in common to argue that the problem is at our end - when we try to avoid difficult or unpalatable aspects of morality. The principles seem to be clear, but we work out the details differently.
• Thus we may have to choose between believing in a god, or in having ethics that are subjective and uncertain. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Those who believe that ethical statements are true and should be followed by everyone have to seriously consider whether this implies that God exists. Perhaps this is a point at which proponents and opponents of moral arguments for God's existence might agree on. Moral considerations give all a reason to examine the proposition that there is a God very seriously. For if there is no God, morality is a more perilous enterprise than if there is.​

The moral argument takes these ideas and tries to demonstrate in a logical way that God exists.

how do we know right and wrong?

It's a challenging discussion. I don't believe that "right and wrong" just **poofed** into existence one day as an amoeba morphed into a gorilla.

I don't think anyone does.
Have you seen anyone make that argument? Have you ever heard it, anywhere?
Or it really some very silly strawman that you are more comfortable arguing against?
As for your citation here, my argument already addresses all of this.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's a challenging discussion. I don't believe that "right and wrong" just **poofed** into existence one day as an amoeba morphed into a gorilla.

I don't think anyone does.
Have you seen anyone make that argument? Have you ever heard it, anywhere?
Or it really some very silly strawman that you are more comfortable arguing against?
As for your citation here, my argument already addresses all of this.

Then if there is no specific point in time when a sense of "right and wrong" **poofed** into existence then it must be an eternal truth: right has always been right and wrong has always been wrong. It can be compared to the simple mathematical equation: 1 + 1 = 2

 

[thebrucebeat]

It's a challenging discussion. I don't believe that "right and wrong" just **poofed** into existence one day as an amoeba morphed into a gorilla.

I don't think anyone does.
Have you seen anyone make that argument? Have you ever heard it, anywhere?
Or it really some very silly strawman that you are more comfortable arguing against?
As for your citation here, my argument already addresses all of this.

Then if there is no specific point in time when a sense of "right and wrong" **poofed** into existence then it must be an eternal truth: right has always been right and wrong has always been wrong. It can be compared to the simple mathematical equation: 1 + 1 = 2

Then you aren't reading my posts.
Logically your premise does not follow.

 

[dilloduck]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

Yes ---survival.

 

[DriftingSand]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

Yes ---survival.

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

 

[BreezeWood]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

Yes ---survival.

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms?


Ram, I doubt you have included all creatures both Flora and Fauna as adapting the same or similar social norms as stated above that likewise display the same uniformity throughout - simply everything that is living have similar constraints in their daily lives.

the consistency could be ascribed as proof that everything that is living has its own unique Spirit and that transparency is a composition of forces including Good - Evil - Love - Hate instilled at birth that is configured throughout life with the goal to be freed when the physical presence expires.

the swirling forces determine the future of the Spirit and for how long it will survive.

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

Yes ---survival.

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

Are you deliberately ignoring my answers to all your silliness?

 

[dilloduck]

To what do you attribute a vast majority of societies adopting the same social norms? Are we all hardwired with a similar moral conscience?

Yes ---survival.

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

I'm sorry---I thought you were referring to people who developed agreements and norms in order to survive. Common stuff like not killing or stealing from each other.

 

[DriftingSand]

dilloduck[/COLOR];9001852]

Yes ---survival.

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

Are you deliberately ignoring my answers to all your silliness?

Please note that I wasn't speaking with you.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes ---survival.

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

I'm sorry---I thought you were referring to people who developed agreements and norms in order to survive. Common stuff like not killing or stealing from each other.

But I thought you believed in "survival of the fittest." You know ... that phrase postulated by the late Charles Darwin. Is "survival of the fittest" no longer the catch phrase of Darwinists? Have you all chosen, rather, to adopt what Christians have been teaching and attempting to live by for more than 2000 years?: That is, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or Christ's second great command, "love thy neighbor?" If so ... I'm glad to see progress.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Weren't organisms able to survive for "billions" of years prior to the advent of "social norms" or the miraculous appearance of ethical standards? If so, then how would "social norms" improve upon an organism's survival rate? As we've seen, societies with certain "social norms" are actually deadly.

Are you deliberately ignoring my answers to all your silliness?

Please note that I wasn't speaking with you.

If your premise has been blown up with one poster, you simply go and try it on someone else?
Why not retire this foolishness?

 

[DriftingSand]

Are you deliberately ignoring my answers to all your silliness?

Please note that I wasn't speaking with you.

If your premise has been blown up with one poster, you simply go and try it on someone else?
Why not retire this foolishness?

My premise is that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I don't believe that anything has blown up.

You, on the other hand, have spent several days dancing around what you really believe: that there really is no right or wrong or that there really is no ethical standard. For you, the concept is fleeting, temporal, and temporary depending on the whims of the individual and the society in which he belongs. It's your end-run around morality and your attempt to defend a society's right to sin on a national scale. In other words, you likely believe that abortion is hunky dory. You likely defend the sin of homosexuality and likely believe in the idea of "gay marriage." Of course, I'm just guessing because I've never seen you post anything of the sort but it's been my experience that everyone who has ever defended the humanist ideal of "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" are folks who embrace a particular sin and need to remove their inner sense of guilt.

 

[amrchaos]

Please note that I wasn't speaking with you.

If your premise has been blown up with one poster, you simply go and try it on someone else?
Why not retire this foolishness?

My premise is that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I don't believe that anything has blown up.

You, on the other hand, have spent several days dancing around what you really believe: that there really is no right or wrong or that there really is no ethical standard. For you, the concept is fleeting, temporal, and temporary depending on the whims of the individual and the society in which he belongs. It's your end-run around morality and your attempt to defend a society's right to sin on a national scale. In other words, you likely believe that abortion is hunky dory. You likely defend the sin of homosexuality and likely believe in the idea of "gay marriage." Of course, I'm just guessing because I've never seen you post anything of the sort but it's been my experience that everyone who has ever defended the humanist ideal of "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" are folks who embrace a particular sin and need to remove their inner sense of guilt.

Actually, I don't think you got the idea of what is being said.

Yes, most of us don't think there is a universal definition of right and wrong.

No, this idea does not mean one can run around the issue of morality--or put it another way--one cannot just arbitrarily choose his course of action and declare it is "right".

The simple reason why not is because actions have consequences. Thus, there is a need to determine "what is the best course of action" Or " what is right thing to do" Or "What is moral"

Disregarding what should be the right course or not has serious consequences. In short, to me at least, it is like asking "What kind of world do I wish to live in?"

We are neither crazy nor stupid. In fact, while theist may fear their gods, atheists have a more profound fear of man. That fear normally dictates our actions.