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

[Hollie]

The concepts of right and wrong (moral vs. immoral), vary with time and culture. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods and those gods were perfectly fine with brother to sister relations. Most people these days only have a few gods or even just one)?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, I believe I've responded to every one of your posts.

You have now engaged in the "bad" of either hypocrisy or fabrication.

The thread postings unmans your statement here.

You succeeded in making no sense whatsoever but I commend you for trying.

The statement above reveals that your ambiguity defeats your purpose.

 

[DriftingSand]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?



Problems for Atheists

Morality is a two edged sword.
It is a cultural agreement, a collective idea of what constitutes right and wrong.Then there is the personal morality that we operate under, that often doesn't agree with the collective decisions.
Christians are no different. There is the collective idea that there is a distinct and defined morality based on the biblical revelation of it, and then there is how the Christian actually lives their life which is never in concert with that, and frequently openly rejects it.
As an example, I frequently confront people with the most detailed description from scripture of how the true believer should behave.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
When I do, the believers invariably get very agitated and start to tell me why these nine characteristics don't apply to them and they are under no obligation to persue them in themeselves.
There is the accepted idea, and what we really believe.
Both could be said to describe a morality, neither is an objective absolute.

My point wasn't that Christians err.
It is that they deliberately reject some of the basic teachings, intentionally. Morality has an accepted basis, and then it has what it really means to the individual.
People develop morality as a means to living in a reasonable amount of peace together, and to determine when it is appropriate to abandon that peace. It is agreed upon, changes, morphs and varies from culture to culture.

I'm certainly no fan of someone claiming to be a Christian while purposely denying or rejecting the basic tenets of Christianity. It's my opinion that someone who walks that path is a false prophet or, at least, a false Christian. But that's another topic for another thread.

I agree that different cultures regard "right and wrong" in varying degrees. But that leaves us with a dilemma. It's right for many Muslim cultures to forcefully circumcise young women. So is it right for them to do that even if you and I believe it's wrong? If you and I believe that it is absolutely wrong then we must admit that there is more to the subject of right and wrong than just a society's definition of it -- AND -- we're left with the question of whether or not there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs.

So can we agree that the whims of a society doesn't necessarily determine what is truly right or truly wrong? Is majority rule always best?

It isn't about majority rule per se. It is a total immersion into a culture from birth. So many things we take as assumptive truths are products of having no other frame of reference. We can't even conceive of an alternative to our paradigm because to us it is absolutely self evident and indisputable, but globally it has no particular relevance.
With your female circumcision example, you find an absolute. What if they are theologically correct and that is a prescribed necessity for the one true god? Your absolute would dissolve. Just like theirs would have to if what you want to base your absolutes on is true.
Absolutes really don't exist, but are the agreements that have the largest adherents.

Thank you.

We are all influenced by our culture; family circumstance and training; genetic makeup; geographical location; school teachers; television; etc. Like fingerprints, no two people are exactly alike. But truth is always truth and it doesn't change. For example, there is only one way that the universe came to exist. It's not a matter of a million different viewpoints nor is it a matter of wishful thinking nor is it a matter of scant scientific "evidence". There is only the true and actual manner by which the universe appeared.

So there is absolute truth which can be seen as absolute good. Truth is good vs. lies which are bad. An absolute lie is absolutely bad regardless of how someone chooses to accept it or view it.

 

[Chuckt]

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Yes, values are faith derived. I believe God is watching me. I went to college and ordered breakfast. They were the only place I knew which sold two eggs and toast for $2.00.
One day they forgot to charge. I told them because God is watching.

I don't have "proof" God is watching but if I suddenly found out that God didn't exist, why should I tell the lady at the counter?

 

[DriftingSand]

You have now engaged in the "bad" of either hypocrisy or fabrication.

The thread postings unmans your statement here.

You succeeded in making no sense whatsoever but I commend you for trying.

The statement above reveals that your ambiguity defeats your purpose.

Talking a lot doesn't mean that you're saying a lot. So far, I've yet to see you make a single valid point or add anything of value to the conversation. For some reason, whenever we share a thread you choose to bicker and express your disagreement with me regardless of anything I say. I get it. You don't care for conservatives Christians like me. Nothing I can do about that so I guess I'll just continue being myself.

 

[Hollie]

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Yes, values are faith derived. I believe God is watching me. I went to college and ordered breakfast. They were the only place I knew which sold two eggs and toast for $2.00.
One day they forgot to charge. I told them because God is watching.

I don't have "proof" God is watching but if I suddenly found out that God didn't exist, why should I tell the lady at the counter?

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My comments have been to the point, while you have talked about right and wrong, then shifted to good evil.

Neither natural philosophy nor positivism, both outdated, can answer your question.

Which puts it back on the believer on faith.

 

[Chuckt]

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Yes, values are faith derived. I believe God is watching me. I went to college and ordered breakfast. They were the only place I knew which sold two eggs and toast for $2.00.
One day they forgot to charge. I told them because God is watching.

I don't have "proof" God is watching but if I suddenly found out that God didn't exist, why should I tell the lady at the counter?

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Corrupt how? There would be no moral focus without a lawgiver. What is right for me would not necessarily be right for you.

Morality is based on faith that there is a God.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, values are faith derived. I believe God is watching me. I went to college and ordered breakfast. They were the only place I knew which sold two eggs and toast for $2.00.
One day they forgot to charge. I told them because God is watching.

I don't have "proof" God is watching but if I suddenly found out that God didn't exist, why should I tell the lady at the counter?

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Corrupt how? There would be no moral focus without a lawgiver. What is right for me would not necessarily be right for you.

Morality is based on faith that there is a God.

I've found that for many religious people, morality is the result of living in trembling fear of angry gods.

Ultimately, if fear of a cosmic spanking is what keeps you from acting immorality, maybe a few gods isn't such a bad thing afterall.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Morality is a two edged sword.
It is a cultural agreement, a collective idea of what constitutes right and wrong.Then there is the personal morality that we operate under, that often doesn't agree with the collective decisions.
Christians are no different. There is the collective idea that there is a distinct and defined morality based on the biblical revelation of it, and then there is how the Christian actually lives their life which is never in concert with that, and frequently openly rejects it.
As an example, I frequently confront people with the most detailed description from scripture of how the true believer should behave.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
When I do, the believers invariably get very agitated and start to tell me why these nine characteristics don't apply to them and they are under no obligation to persue them in themeselves.
There is the accepted idea, and what we really believe.
Both could be said to describe a morality, neither is an objective absolute.

I'm certainly no fan of someone claiming to be a Christian while purposely denying or rejecting the basic tenets of Christianity. It's my opinion that someone who walks that path is a false prophet or, at least, a false Christian. But that's another topic for another thread.

I agree that different cultures regard "right and wrong" in varying degrees. But that leaves us with a dilemma. It's right for many Muslim cultures to forcefully circumcise young women. So is it right for them to do that even if you and I believe it's wrong? If you and I believe that it is absolutely wrong then we must admit that there is more to the subject of right and wrong than just a society's definition of it -- AND -- we're left with the question of whether or not there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs.

So can we agree that the whims of a society doesn't necessarily determine what is truly right or truly wrong? Is majority rule always best?

It isn't about majority rule per se. It is a total immersion into a culture from birth. So many things we take as assumptive truths are products of having no other frame of reference. We can't even conceive of an alternative to our paradigm because to us it is absolutely self evident and indisputable, but globally it has no particular relevance.
With your female circumcision example, you find an absolute. What if they are theologically correct and that is a prescribed necessity for the one true god? Your absolute would dissolve. Just like theirs would have to if what you want to base your absolutes on is true.
Absolutes really don't exist, but are the agreements that have the largest adherents.

Thank you.

We are all influenced by our culture; family circumstance and training; genetic makeup; geographical location; school teachers; television; etc. Like fingerprints, no two people are exactly alike. But truth is always truth and it doesn't change. For example, there is only one way that the universe came to exist. It's not a matter of a million different viewpoints nor is it a matter of wishful thinking nor is it a matter of scant scientific "evidence". There is only the true and actual manner by which the universe appeared.So there is absolute truth which can be seen as absolute good. Truth is good vs. lies which are bad. An absolute lie is absolutely bad regardless of how someone chooses to accept it or view it.

The red part of your post is exactly why there is no concensus on right and wrong, good and evil. There is no consistent experience to base it on.
The blue part is true, I think, but incomplete.
The fact that an absolute truth exists doesn't mean it can be ascertained. Two completely different issues. Truth IS. Your perception or belief in what that is has no confirmation, nor does mine, so the fact that we agree that truth exists gets us no closer to being able to agree on what truth IS.
So in the absence of this confirmation, we choose our truths, our goods and evils, our rights and wrongs.

 

[DriftingSand]

My comments have been to the point, while you have talked about right and wrong, then shifted to good evil.

Neither natural philosophy nor positivism, both outdated, can answer your question.

Which puts it back on the believer on faith.

Right and wrong are intrinsically related to good and evil in my opinion. I will never see evil as right or good as wrong. They're close siblings.

I believe that we can know good from evil and right from wrong. You wouldn't argue against certain policies or ideals unless you believed yourself to be right and other guy's opinion to be wrong. None of us would argue vehemently unless we thought we could convince someone else of an absolute correct viewpoint.

But I used an example earlier. I will use a similar one now. Life appeared at a particular time and in a particular manner. Though there are millions of different opinions as to how it appeared there is only one, true manner by which it did. Therefore, truth can be absolute. Truth is good. It reveals things the way that they really are. Therefore, if truth is absolute and "right" then there is an absolute right just as falsehood can be absolutely wrong. So there is an absolute right and a wrong but not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.

 

[DriftingSand]

It isn't about majority rule per se. It is a total immersion into a culture from birth. So many things we take as assumptive truths are products of having no other frame of reference. We can't even conceive of an alternative to our paradigm because to us it is absolutely self evident and indisputable, but globally it has no particular relevance.
With your female circumcision example, you find an absolute. What if they are theologically correct and that is a prescribed necessity for the one true god? Your absolute would dissolve. Just like theirs would have to if what you want to base your absolutes on is true.
Absolutes really don't exist, but are the agreements that have the largest adherents.

Thank you.

We are all influenced by our culture; family circumstance and training; genetic makeup; geographical location; school teachers; television; etc. Like fingerprints, no two people are exactly alike. But truth is always truth and it doesn't change. For example, there is only one way that the universe came to exist. It's not a matter of a million different viewpoints nor is it a matter of wishful thinking nor is it a matter of scant scientific "evidence". There is only the true and actual manner by which the universe appeared.So there is absolute truth which can be seen as absolute good. Truth is good vs. lies which are bad. An absolute lie is absolutely bad regardless of how someone chooses to accept it or view it.

The red part of your post is exactly why there is no concensus on right and wrong, good and evil. There is no consistent experience to base it on.
The blue part is true, I think, but incomplete.
The fact that an absolute truth exists doesn't mean it can be ascertained. Two completely different issues. Truth IS. Your perception or belief in what that is has no confirmation, nor does mine, so the fact that we agree that truth exists gets us no closer to being able to agree on what truth IS.
So in the absence of this confirmation, we choose our truths, our goods and evils, our rights and wrongs.

Good points, all. But then we must both admit that there is a possibility that what we (as individuals) believe to be true is, in actuality, false. This possibility applies to each of us equally if we're to accept your hypothesis. That would also mean that there is a good chance that either of us could be completely correct (or nearly so) where are respective beliefs are concerned. That being the case, I should be willing to accept the possibility that my trust in God is unfounded and that your trust in your atheistic views are correct. By the same token, you should be able to question your conclusions and accept that my belief in a literal God could be completely correct. But I doubt that either of us will change our stance because we both believe that our personal conclusions are absolutely correct.

That means that both of us believe in absolutes. (Or that we're both too proud to admit our doubts)

 

[mudwhistle]

Just because you subscribe to a religion does not mean that you will be ethical or moral...

IMO, its just the opposite. Religions are full of excuses.

Atheists don't have anyone to blame. They don't have the option of saying "god moves in mysterious ways", "the devil made me do it" or any of the other platitudes. They have to take the blame, the responsibility and the credit for their own actions.

Then blame it all on religion....

 

[Big Black Dog]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

Go to a bar. Any bar. Find the most attractive lady in that bar, walk up to her and without even speaking, grab her tit. You will find out almost instantly the difference in "right" and "wrong". I promise you this will be true.

 

[mudwhistle]

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Corrupt how? There would be no moral focus without a lawgiver. What is right for me would not necessarily be right for you.

Morality is based on faith that there is a God.

I've found that for many religious people, morality is the result of living in trembling fear of angry gods.

Ultimately, if fear of a cosmic spanking is what keeps you from acting immorality, maybe a few gods isn't such a bad thing afterall.

 

[mudwhistle]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

Go to a bar. Any bar. Find the most attractive lady in that bar, walk up to her and without even speaking, grab her tit. You will find out almost instantly the difference in "right" and "wrong". I promise you this will be true.

Depends on the bar.

Go to the right bar and she'll say "What took you so long".

Then check for a package.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My comments have been to the point, while you have talked about right and wrong, then shifted to good evil.

Neither natural philosophy nor positivism, both outdated, can answer your question.

Which puts it back on the believer on faith.

Right and wrong are intrinsically related to good and evil in my opinion. I will never see evil as right or good as wrong. They're close siblings.

I believe that we can know good from evil and right from wrong. You wouldn't argue against certain policies or ideals unless you believed yourself to be right and other guy's opinion to be wrong. None of us would argue vehemently unless we thought we could convince someone else of an absolute correct viewpoint.

But I used an example earlier. I will use a similar one now. Life appeared at a particular time and in a particular manner. Though there are millions of different opinions as to how it appeared there is only one, true manner by which it did. Therefore, truth can be absolute. Truth is good. It reveals things the way that they really are. Therefore, if truth is absolute and "right" then there is an absolute right just as falsehood can be absolutely wrong. So there is an absolute right and a wrong but not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.

Philosophical introspection is enjoyable as is masturbation, can be like other, sterile.

I will rely on faith to do right from wrong, good from evil.

 

[DriftingSand]

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Corrupt how? There would be no moral focus without a lawgiver. What is right for me would not necessarily be right for you.

Morality is based on faith that there is a God.

I've found that for many religious people, morality is the result of living in trembling fear of angry gods.

Ultimately, if fear of a cosmic spanking is what keeps you from acting immorality, maybe a few gods isn't such a bad thing afterall.

There may very well be folks who tremble in the presence of God but that may not necessarily be a bad thing if it helps that person remain humble and repentant rather than haughty and self-serving.

I personally tremble in awe at the vast power and presence of God but I am far more joyful than I am fearful. My forum name is "DriftingSand" because I feel like a speck of sand in a giant universe. I'm humbled by it's vastness and the mighty power that brought it into existence. That presence is God, in my view. I see the macro workings of the Universe as well as the micro workings of the living cell as miraculous. They make the intricate systems found in a Corvette seem puny and simple in comparison. But there's not a single person who looks at a Corvette engine without knowing that it was designed, intelligently. But the same folks will look at the eyeball; the living cell; the brain; and the universe and deny that intelligence had anything to do with it.

To me, it's far more logical to believe that life and the world were designed by something than it is to believe that they were designed by nothing.

 

[DriftingSand]

My comments have been to the point, while you have talked about right and wrong, then shifted to good evil.

Neither natural philosophy nor positivism, both outdated, can answer your question.

Which puts it back on the believer on faith.

Right and wrong are intrinsically related to good and evil in my opinion. I will never see evil as right or good as wrong. They're close siblings.

I believe that we can know good from evil and right from wrong. You wouldn't argue against certain policies or ideals unless you believed yourself to be right and other guy's opinion to be wrong. None of us would argue vehemently unless we thought we could convince someone else of an absolute correct viewpoint.

But I used an example earlier. I will use a similar one now. Life appeared at a particular time and in a particular manner. Though there are millions of different opinions as to how it appeared there is only one, true manner by which it did. Therefore, truth can be absolute. Truth is good. It reveals things the way that they really are. Therefore, if truth is absolute and "right" then there is an absolute right just as falsehood can be absolutely wrong. So there is an absolute right and a wrong but not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.

Philosophical introspection is enjoyable as is masturbation, can be like other, sterile.

I will rely on faith to do right from wrong, good from evil.

Nothing wrong with faith as long as it's faith in the right thing. Atheists exercise faith just as often as Christians do but they don't recognize what they believe as being faith-based. Nevertheless, to believe something that can't be proven requires faith.

 

[Chuckt]

From my comments just moments ago:

Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Corrupt how? There would be no moral focus without a lawgiver. What is right for me would not necessarily be right for you.

Morality is based on faith that there is a God.

I've found that for many religious people, morality is the result of living in trembling fear of angry gods.

Ultimately, if fear of a cosmic spanking is what keeps you from acting immorality, maybe a few gods isn't such a bad thing afterall.

It is based on faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God which is based on the Ten Commandments, the law, Jesus and His example, etc.

I don't think morality is based on angry gods. If anyone in Christianity was scared, it would be towards bringing shame on Jesus or losing rewards (1 Corinthians 3:15) and the point is that a lot of us believe we are eternally secure if we are Christian. We obey the law out of love.