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

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That you don't approve the perfectly acceptable answers given is your problem.

 

[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?



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.

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.

 

[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.

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?

You said you had never met one.
Now you have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP was about Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

"are the forces of Good and Evil subjective" .

"currents of Good and Evil most certainly have physical effects."

The goal posts have been moved: bait and switch.

Try again, please, because the OP is fail at this point.

 

[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?

That you don't approve the perfectly acceptable answers given is your problem.

Thanks for your opinion. Oh ... how do you define the difference between right and wrong again? And what's the source for your conclusion? I must have missed your answer.

 

[DriftingSand]

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?

You said you had never met one.
Now you have.

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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?

You said you had never met one.
Now you have.

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

 

[DriftingSand]

You said you had never met one.
Now you have.

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

It will always be better to do good because it's the right thing to do than to do it for personal gain. The only exception is to do something for gain if the money gained is then used to do more good.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

It will always be better to do good because it's the right thing to do than to do it for personal gain. The only exception is to do something for gain if the money gained is then used to do more good.

Not everyone would agree with you. Some feel that profit is the highest good and define the value of a man.
You think your values are universal, but they really aren't.
We all presume our own vision of good and evil is self evident, but it isn't.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

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?

 

[Chuckt]

You said you had never met one.
Now you have.

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

Maybe so bruce but here is the thing.

Suppose you sin once a day. You're a good person because you aren't like those other sinners, right? Because you only sin once a day.

365 days X 70 years = 25,550 sins.

And you sin more than once a day. Right?

So you are going to meet God on the White Throne Judgment in your own righteousness and say, "I invented a vaccine that helped people." Those are good works aren't they?

And God may say, "good" but you are going to get this amount of fire for this sin and this amount of fire for that sin because you came by your own righteousness.

Sin is eternal and it gets punished eternally.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I think you must be answering DGS49's post. I didn't say what you think I said.

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

Maybe so bruce but here is the thing.

Suppose you sin once a day. You're a good person because you aren't like those other sinners, right? Because you only sin once a day.

365 days X 70 years = 25,550 sins.

And you sin more than once a day. Right?

So you are going to meet God on the White Throne Judgment in your own righteousness and say, "I invented a vaccine that helped people." Those are good works aren't they?

And God may say, "good" but you are going to get this amount of fire for this sin and this amount of fire for that sin because you came by your own righteousness.

Sin is eternal and it gets punished eternally.

This is completely unrelated to the current discussion.
Start a thread.
Try to stay focused.

 

[DriftingSand]

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

It will always be better to do good because it's the right thing to do than to do it for personal gain. The only exception is to do something for gain if the money gained is then used to do more good.

Not everyone would agree with you. Some feel that profit is the highest good and define the value of a man.
You think your values are universal, but they really aren't.
We all presume our own vision of good and evil is self evident, but it isn't.

First of all ... thanks for being civil and discussing these issues like an adult.

If there is one thing I know for certain it's that I realize that my view of morality and the values that stem from that are in the minority (universally speaking).

I personally believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs that most humans seem to instinctively and internally understand. I also realize that we all face moral dilemmas that aren't as black & white and that leave us guessing.

I also agree with you that many folks "presume" to know (or think they know) what is good and what is bad and that it's self evident even when it isn't. That realization leads us to another realization -- we're all in a position to recognize that we could be wrong about the things that we think are right.

So, how are we going to truly know what's right or wrong?

 

[thebrucebeat]

It will always be better to do good because it's the right thing to do than to do it for personal gain. The only exception is to do something for gain if the money gained is then used to do more good.

Not everyone would agree with you. Some feel that profit is the highest good and define the value of a man.
You think your values are universal, but they really aren't.
We all presume our own vision of good and evil is self evident, but it isn't.

First of all ... thanks for being civil and discussing these issues like an adult.

If there is one thing I know for certain it's that I realize that my view of morality and the values that stem from that are in the minority (universally speaking).

I personally believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs that most humans seem to instinctively and internally understand. I also realize that we all face moral dilemmas that aren't as black & white that leave us guessing.

I also agree with you than many folks "presume" to know (or think they know) what is good and what is bad and that it's self evident even when it isn't. That realization leads us to another realization -- we're all in a position to recognize that we could be wrong about the things that we think are right.

So, how are we going to truly know what's right or wrong?

I addressed this in a previous post that you did not repond to.

 

[DriftingSand]

I addressed this in a previous post that you did not repond to.

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

 

[Chuckt]

Correct and my apologies.
In answer to your question, there are many people in this country who think what Salk did was not a good thing, because he took a once in a lifetime opportunity for unimaginable riches and squandered it.
Thinking that people universally think what Salk did was "good" is simply wishful thinking.
I'm glad you and I agree that what he did was good.

Maybe so bruce but here is the thing.

Suppose you sin once a day. You're a good person because you aren't like those other sinners, right? Because you only sin once a day.

365 days X 70 years = 25,550 sins.

And you sin more than once a day. Right?

So you are going to meet God on the White Throne Judgment in your own righteousness and say, "I invented a vaccine that helped people." Those are good works aren't they?

And God may say, "good" but you are going to get this amount of fire for this sin and this amount of fire for that sin because you came by your own righteousness.

Sin is eternal and it gets punished eternally.

This is completely unrelated to the current discussion.
Start a thread.
Try to stay focused.

Actually Bruce,

This forum is called "Religion and Ethics" so if you want to stay focused then you are guilty of derailing a majority of the messages towards the atheistic viewpoint even though atheism isn't named in this forum.

Just because someone does good doesn't mean they are good. Some people do things like create vaccines for significance which may be a selfish reason. Some people are evil but are afraid of doing bad things because they don't want to get caught. Sometimes doing good is just a cloak for their sins.

Chuck

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sin is eternal and it gets punished eternally.

Good is eternal and it gets rewarded eternally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I addressed this in a previous post that you did not repond to.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[DriftingSand]

I addressed this in a previous post that you did not repond to.

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.