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

[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?

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.

Problems for Atheists

 

[Moonglow]

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

 

[westwall]

Yes, ethics are a fundamental philosophy. There need be no religion for ethics to exist. Morality though, changes with time and culture. Ethics never do.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both a rationalist or literalist Christian probably posits an eternal right in metaphysical naturalism.

An agnostic or atheist or believer in an impersonal deity can believe in a sense of "good" based on service to others, for instance.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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?

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.

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.

 

[DriftingSand]

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

So you can't answer the questions. That's cool. Just say so.

 

[DriftingSand]

Lots of answers but nobody has a basis for their opinion (so far).

To a hungry person who enjoys the flavor of human flesh it is "right" to kill a human for food. Why is that person wrong?

 

[Moonglow]

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

So you can't answer the questions. That's cool. Just say so.

Why? You seem to want to answer it for me....

 

[DriftingSand]

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

So you can't answer the questions. That's cool. Just say so.

Why? You seem to want to answer it for me....

Strike two!!

 

[HenryBHough]

Easy!


"Right" = fiscally conservative

"Wrong" = Marx-O-Crat spendthrift!

There's the difference although both are themselves religions!

 

[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?

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.

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.

The topic has been established. Accusing of Christians of imperfections isn't really necessary as there are probably 100,000 threads accusing of Christians of being fallible humans. We already know that. I'm imperfect ... I get it.

So why is it necessary for humans to follow any particular set of morals or ethics? Are humans not just mistakes based on random chance/happenstance? Why must there be a right or wrong? Other members of the animal kingdom do what they must to survive even if it means killing members of their own kind. Survival of the fittest, if you will.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes, ethics are a fundamental philosophy. There need be no religion for ethics to exist. Morality though, changes with time and culture. Ethics never do.

Who's philosophy? Which philosophy? Yours or someone elses?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Lots of answers but nobody has a basis for their opinion (so far).

To a hungry person who enjoys the flavor of human flesh it is "right" to kill a human for food. Why is that person wrong?

Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?

 

[DriftingSand]

Lots of answers but nobody has a basis for their opinion (so far).

To a hungry person who enjoys the flavor of human flesh it is "right" to kill a human for food. Why is that person wrong?

Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?

So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.

 

[DGS49]

It is too easy to rationalize "right" and "wrong" to correspond to your own personal whims and desires, and to justify anything you want to do with sophistry.

For example, a criminal defense attorney can defend someone he KNOWS FOR A FACT is a rapist - thus promoting freedom for a person who is almost certain to victimize others in the future - by telling himself that in order for The System to work it is necessary that everyone have a competent defense. Blah, blah blah.

Indeed, most Democrats would consider him a "moral" person.

But he is a schweinhund.

People justify adultery by telling themselves that if their spouse never finds out about it, and they continue treating their spouse and children as though everything were fine and dandy, no harm is done.

They justify cheating the insurance company or the IRS by saying, I need the money more than they do. They talk about "white lies."

There are no altruistic imperatives for non-believers. The only reason they do anything for anyone else is if they think they will get something out of it, or to assuage their guilt about being so selfish. These are the people who push government give-away programs, because those programs allow them to consider themselves "compassionate" and "kind" with Other Peoples' Money!

Aside from the occasional inventor or entrepreneur who helps others inadvertently, where the atheist about whom it could be said, "it is a better world with him in it"?

I don't think I've ever met him.

 

[thebrucebeat]

It is too easy to rationalize "right" and "wrong" to correspond to your own personal whims and desires, and to justify anything you want to do with sophistry.

For example, a criminal defense attorney can defend someone he KNOWS FOR A FACT is a rapist - thus promoting freedom for a person who is almost certain to victimize others in the future - by telling himself that in order for The System to work it is necessary that everyone have a competent defense. Blah, blah blah.

Indeed, most Democrats would consider him a "moral" person.

But he is a schweinhund.

People justify adultery by telling themselves that if their spouse never finds out about it, and they continue treating their spouse and children as though everything were fine and dandy, no harm is done.

They justify cheating the insurance company or the IRS by saying, I need the money more than they do. They talk about "white lies."

There are no altruistic imperatives for non-believers. The only reason they do anything for anyone else is if they think they will get something out of it, or to assuage their guilt about being so selfish. These are the people who push government give-away programs, because those programs allow them to consider themselves "compassionate" and "kind" with Other Peoples' Money!

Aside from the occasional inventor or entrepreneur who helps others inadvertently, where the atheist about whom it could be said, "it is a better world with him in it"?

I don't think I've ever met him.

Dr. Jonas Salk was an atheist and gave his vaccine away.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

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.

Problems for Atheists

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.


is the force of Gravity subjective ? -

are the forces of Good and Evil subjective ? - * no.

- it may not be evident in ones "own subjective opinions" however for the function of thought the confluent currents of Good and Evil most certainly have physical effects.

the physicality of abstract terms is definable without having subjective results.

.

 

[DriftingSand]

It is too easy to rationalize "right" and "wrong" to correspond to your own personal whims and desires, and to justify anything you want to do with sophistry.

For example, a criminal defense attorney can defend someone he KNOWS FOR A FACT is a rapist - thus promoting freedom for a person who is almost certain to victimize others in the future - by telling himself that in order for The System to work it is necessary that everyone have a competent defense. Blah, blah blah.

Indeed, most Democrats would consider him a "moral" person.

But he is a schweinhund.

People justify adultery by telling themselves that if their spouse never finds out about it, and they continue treating their spouse and children as though everything were fine and dandy, no harm is done.

They justify cheating the insurance company or the IRS by saying, I need the money more than they do. They talk about "white lies."

There are no altruistic imperatives for non-believers. The only reason they do anything for anyone else is if they think they will get something out of it, or to assuage their guilt about being so selfish. These are the people who push government give-away programs, because those programs allow them to consider themselves "compassionate" and "kind" with Other Peoples' Money!

Aside from the occasional inventor or entrepreneur who helps others inadvertently, where the atheist about whom it could be said, "it is a better world with him in it"?

I don't think I've ever met him.

Dr. Jonas Salk was an atheist and gave his vaccine away.

He did a good thing but why was it good? I realize that it's a tough question to answer. We all agree that he did a great service to mankind regardless of his religious or non-religious stance but I'm still seeking your source for defining the difference between good and evil.

What if one woman is pregnant and wants to keep her child. She runs into complications so a doctor uses laser technology to save the baby's life. Did he do a good thing?

What if another woman is carrying a perfectly healthy baby but doesn't want it. So the same doctor uses laser technology to cut the baby into pieces. Did he do a good thing?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, ethics are a fundamental philosophy. There need be no religion for ethics to exist. Morality though, changes with time and culture. Ethics never do.

Hey dumbass, ethics is a system of moral principles.