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

[DriftingSand]

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.

Several things have been said so I'm responding to a general "lean" towards a particular direction. The general consensus amongst non-theists is that "right and wrong" are concepts that are only relative to a particular, given circumstance. Bruce doesn't believe that "right and wrong" are absolutes and he believes that they tend to earn redefinition as a society morphs from one collective mindset to another. I'm simply saying that if that's the case then what a society considers "sinful" (or unlawful) one century may be considered popular and acceptable in the next century.

However, if murder has always been wrong and always WILL be wrong then right and wrong CAN be seen as absolutes in many cases (depending on the particular act being considered) and unchanging regardless of the society or the century.

So ... if there are absolute rights and wrongs then they have been right or wrong for eternity else they cannot be considered absolutes. But non-theists don't believe in an eternal moral code so how can they see right and wrong as absolute? They can't as long as they remain non-theists. As long as they consider man to be a product of chaotic happenstance and forever in a state of evolution then they MUST believe that moral standards evolve with him; therefore, subject to constant change.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Several things have been said so I'm responding to a general "lean" towards a particular direction. The general consensus amongst non-theists is that "right and wrong" are concepts that are only relative to a particular, given circumstance. Bruce doesn't believe that "right and wrong" are absolutes and he believes that they tend to earn redefinition as a society morphs from one collective mindset to another. I'm simply saying that if that's the case then what a society considers "sinful" (or unlawful) one century may be considered popular and acceptable in the next century.

However, if murder has always been wrong and always WILL be wrong then right and wrong CAN be seen as absolutes in many cases (depending on the particular act being considered) and unchanging regardless of the society or the century.

So ... if there are absolute rights and wrongs then they have been right or wrong for eternity else they cannot be considered absolutes. But non-theists don't believe in an eternal moral code so how can they see right and wrong as absolute? They can't as long as they remain non-theists. As long as they consider man to be a product of chaotic happenstance and forever in a state of evolution then they MUST believe that moral standards evolve with him; therefore, subject to constant change.

Actually, I think Bruce makes an interesting point. Social norms do change as in what was considered moral(or immoral) might become immoral(or acceptable, not necessarily moral) the next.

And you actually gave a good example in the case of murder. Do you really believe that all societies viewed murder as wrong. I would say the stable ones may have, but there are other societies in our history that allowed a member to murder people outside their group. In some cases, not only was it considered acceptable, but was a path for high standing and respectability in the particular society. Of course, most of these cases would relate to groups that survived by raiding and enslaving their neighbors. But these societies did exist.

Can we therefore say these people did not have a sense of morality? Well, that depends on your reference point. If you are a pacifist or someone that believes murder is wrong no matter the circumstance, you would say they lack any type of moral beliefs On the other hand, if you were a member of the society in question, you may say this is how we survive. When did survival become wrong?

This is were the concept of "relative" comes from. Based on perception, what one considers immoral, another may consider moral or acceptable.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Several things have been said so I'm responding to a general "lean" towards a particular direction. The general consensus amongst non-theists is that "right and wrong" are concepts that are only relative to a particular, given circumstance. Bruce doesn't believe that "right and wrong" are absolutes and he believes that they tend to earn redefinition as a society morphs from one collective mindset to another. I'm simply saying that if that's the case then what a society considers "sinful" (or unlawful) one century may be considered popular and acceptable in the next century.

However, if murder has always been wrong and always WILL be wrong then right and wrong CAN be seen as absolutes in many cases (depending on the particular act being considered) and unchanging regardless of the society or the century.

So ... if there are absolute rights and wrongs then they have been right or wrong for eternity else they cannot be considered absolutes. But non-theists don't believe in an eternal moral code so how can they see right and wrong as absolute? They can't as long as they remain non-theists. As long as they consider man to be a product of chaotic happenstance and forever in a state of evolution then they MUST believe that moral standards evolve with him; therefore, subject to constant change.

Actually, I think Bruce makes an interesting point. Social norms do change as in what was considered moral(or immoral) might become immoral(or acceptable, not necessarily moral) the next.

And you actually gave a good example in the case of murder. Do you really believe that all societies viewed murder as wrong. I would say the stable ones may have, but there are other societies in our history that allowed a member to murder people outside their group. In some cases, not only was it considered acceptable, but was a path for high standing and respectability in the particular society. Of course, most of these cases would relate to groups that survived by raiding and enslaving their neighbors. But these societies did exist.

Can we therefore say these people did not have a sense of morality? Well, that depends on your reference point. If you are a pacifist or someone that believes murder is wrong no matter the circumstance, you would say they lack any type of moral beliefs On the other hand, if you were a member of the society in question, you may say this is how we survive. When did survival become wrong?

This is were the concept of "relative" comes from. Based on perception, what one considers immoral, another may consider moral or acceptable.

We've come full circle to a point that I made much earlier in the conversation.

The fact that some societies considered murder okay at various points in history proves that we cannot rely on the mind of man to determine what is right or wrong. Just because a society deems it okay doesn't mean that it IS okay. It's still wrong no matter what. Therefore, it's my opinion that the ideals of righteousness come from a place that's above the mind of man.

This is were the concept of "relative" comes from. Based on perception, what one considers immoral, another may consider moral or acceptable.

When a society gets to a point where everyone simply makes up the rules as they go based on what each individual FEELS is right for himself then the society begins to crumble upon itself because it is no longer held together by a common sense of morality or code of ethics. Instead, chaos and confusion and division rules the day and the society becomes divided. Remember the old saying: United we stand but divided we fall.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Christians and Jews like our books are forged like iron and the bond will not break down over time. The religions of Judaism and Christianity are complimentary to one another and we are getting along fine. There is no violence between us, Bruce.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Interesting discussion!

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Christians and Jews like our books are forged like iron and the bond will not break down over time. The religions of Judaism and Christianity are complimentary to one another and we are getting along fine. There is no violence between us, Bruce.

Howdy. I got the sense that Bruce was comparing Christianity to Islam but I could be wrong. Fortunately for Bruce and friends, Christianity has been much more forgiving towards the "agnostic" view of things than Islam would ever be.

 

[MaryL]

Nope. It's all artifice.

 

[DriftingSand]

Nope. It's all artifice.

Then you wouldn't mind if someone ripped off your car or stole your identity or caused you bodily harm? All "artifice?"

 

[oldfart]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong?

Yes. Don't you?

Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is?

No, there is no cookbook of lists of right and wrong. There is a process for determining what is right and wrong.

If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

All moral agents must decide what principles guide them.

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Balderdash and poppycock. All your quote demonstrates is that if you ask the wrong question, you get ridiculous answers. You are about 2600 years late to the party.

 

[MaryL]

Nope. It's all artifice.

Then you wouldn't mind if someone ripped off your car or stole your identity or caused you bodily harm? All "artifice?"

No, I wouldn't. But that wasn't the question. I am no punky liberal equivocator.

 

[amrchaos]

You know what is weird

If the rest of humanity was a figment of my imagination, I could probably say that the only authority of right or wrong rest on my whims,

Alas, Humans are all too real. And reactive. Sometimes, a bit too reactive!!

 

[DriftingSand]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong?

Yes. Don't you?

Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is?

No, there is no cookbook of lists of right and wrong. There is a process for determining what is right and wrong.



All moral agents must decide what principles guide them.

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Balderdash and poppycock. All your quote demonstrates is that if you ask the wrong question, you get ridiculous answers. You are about 2600 years late to the party.

Thanks for your in-depth commentary. I feel enlightened.

 

[DriftingSand]

Nope. It's all artifice.

Then you wouldn't mind if someone ripped off your car or stole your identity or caused you bodily harm? All "artifice?"

No, I wouldn't. But that wasn't the question. I am no punky liberal equivocator.

You wouldn't mind if your life was ruined in some criminal manner? Do you actually expect me to believe that?

 

[DriftingSand]

You know what is weird

If the rest of humanity was a figment of my imagination, I could probably say that the only authority of right or wrong rest on my whims,

Alas, Humans are all too real. And reactive. Sometimes, a bit too reactive!!

If the rest of humanity did not exist how would you describe your sense of right and wrong?

 

[Chuckt]

Then you wouldn't mind if someone ripped off your car or stole your identity or caused you bodily harm? All "artifice?"

No, I wouldn't. But that wasn't the question. I am no punky liberal equivocator.

You wouldn't mind if your life was ruined in some criminal manner? Do you actually expect me to believe that?

Not sure they wish to accept that.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" basically defines the actions of organized religions. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals (rather- the lack thereof) is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture.

Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

 

[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.

Christians and Jews like our books are forged like iron and the bond will not break down over time. The religions of Judaism and Christianity are complimentary to one another and we are getting along fine. There is no violence between us, Bruce.

You noticeably leave out Islam and the ongoing conflict there.
That was my reference point.
Not that you didn't know that.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" basically defines the actions of organized religions. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals (rather- the lack thereof) is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture.

Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions.

The tenets of the Christian New Testament (in it's current canon) have been steadfast and consistent since approximately 1599 when the Geneva Bible was printed. However, the basic tenets can be traced back to earlier times (Coverdale, Tyndale, and others). Love thy neighbor; do unto others; belief in Christ; Christ as Lord and Savior; repenting of ones sins; prayer; belief in Heaven; charity; etc. have all been foundational to Christianity for many centuries and that foundation has never changed. Don't compare organized religions to biblical Christianity. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

Now, non-theist institutions (governments) have done a quite of bit of changing through the years. The one constant thread that has linked them together is human death on a massive scale. I believe it's estimated that some 94 million have died under communism (atheism in action). Communist governments have worn many masks during that time. You have the aggressive, murderous Communists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and other non-theist, humanists then you have the more passive kind like Obama. You may also want to read the Humanist Manifesto #1 and compare it to the Humanist Manifesto #2 and note the changes. By the way, the Humanist Manifesto refers to Humanism as "religious humanism." Interesting.

 

[DriftingSand]

I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" basically defines the actions of organized religions. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals (rather- the lack thereof) is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture.

Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

If there is no "ultimate morality" then it really doesn't matter what my child does or doesn't do nor is it important why he does or doesn't do it. Right? If there is no ultimate morality then there really is no right or wrong. Therefore, my child can just go out and do what he damn well pleases because there really aren't any moral consequences.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And, if you look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam you will realize that neither do those religious beliefs. "MAKE UP YOUR STANDARD AS YOU GO" basically defines the actions of organized religions. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals (rather- the lack thereof) is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture.

Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment?

No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions.

The tenets of the Christian New Testament (in it's current canon) have been steadfast and consistent since approximately 1599 when the Geneva Bible was printed. However, the basic tenets can be traced back to earlier times (Coverdale, Tyndale, and others). Love thy neighbor; do unto others; belief in Christ; Christ as Lord and Savior; repenting of ones sins; prayer; belief in Heaven; charity; etc. have all been foundational to Christianity for many centuries and that foundation has never changed. Don't compare organized religions to biblical Christianity. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

Ahh. So it's not fair to equate Christians with Christianity. Got it.

I'm not sure what biblical Christianity actually is. Considering that Christianity has splintered into so many competing sects and subdivisions, I'm not convinced that Christians know what biblical Christianity is

Now, non-theist institutions (governments) have done a quite of bit of changing through the years. The one constant thread that has linked them together is human death on a massive scale. I believe it's estimated that some 94 million have died under communism (atheism in action). Communist governments have worn many masks during that time. You have the aggressive, murderous Communists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and other non-theist, humanists then you have the more passive kind like Obama. You may also want to read the Humanist Manifesto #1 and compare it to the Humanist Manifesto #2 and note the changes. By the way, the Humanist Manifesto refers to Humanism as "religious humanism." Interesting.

if you tally the scores, religion "wins" in the mass human destruction race.