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

[DriftingSand]

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.

When will they?

 

[Chuckt]

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.

Evangelical views[edit]
In contrast to faith meaning blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence, Alister McGrath quotes Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas, (1861-1924), who states faith is "not blind, but intelligent" and "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence...", which McGrath sees as "a good and reliable definition, synthesizing the core elements of the characteristic Christian understanding of faith."[17]

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."[18] Likewise Tom Price (Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) affirms that when the New Testament talks about faith positively it only uses words derived from the Greek root [pistis] which means "to be persuaded."[19]

British Christian apologist John Lennox argues that "faith conceived as belief that lacks warrant is very different from faith conceived as belief that has warrant." And that, "the use of the adjective 'blind' to describe 'faith' indicates that faith is not necessarily, or always, or indeed normally, blind." "The validity, or warrant, of faith or belief depends on the strength of the evidence on which the belief is based." "We all know how to distinguish between blind faith and evidence-based faith. We are well aware that faith is only justified if there is evidence to back it up." "Evidence-based faith is the normal concept on which we base our everyday lives."[20]

Peter S Williams[21] holds that "the classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality, and does not hold that faith involves the complete abandonment of reason will believing in the teeth of evidence." Quoting Moreland, faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true."

Regarding "doubting Thomas" in John 20:24-31, Williams points out that "Thomas wasn't asked to believe without evidence." He was asked to believe on the basis of the other disciples' testimony. Thomas initially lacked the first-hand experience of the evidence that had convinced them... Moreover, the reason John gives for recounting these events is that what she saw is evidence... Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples...But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. John 20:30,31.[22]

Kenneth Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. describe a classic understanding of faith that is referred to as evidentialism. And which is part of a larger epistemological tradition called classical foundationalism, which is accompanied by deontologism, which holds that humans have an obligation to regulate their beliefs in accordance with evidentialist structures.

They show how this can go too far,[23] and Alvin Plantinga as dealing with it. While Plantinga upholds that faith may be the result of evidence testifying to the reliability of the source (of the truth claims), yet he sees having faith as being the result of hearing the truth of the gospel with the internal persuasion by the Holy Spirit moving and enabling him to believe. "Christian belief is produced in the believer by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, endorsing the teachings of Scripture, which is itself divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. The result of the work of the Holy Spirit is faith."[24]

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avatar4321]

We have to make choices between right and wrong everyday. We also have to make choices between good and better. and sometimes unfortunately, bad and worse.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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)

Well, you tripped up here pretty badly.
I am not an atheist, but I am most definitely agnostic in the true sense of the word. I honestly think the truth can not be known. That is my honest position. My doubt is profound. I have no data that god exists and none that he doesn't (though I have a great deal of data that the bible is a poor description if he exists at all). I have no absolute to defend. I find absolutes on both sides simply preposterous, quite frankly.
I think the chances that anyone is completely correct approaches zero.
It was your assumptions that tripped you up here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Problems for Atheists

It’s interesting how theists ignorant of those free from faith feel compelled to exhibit that ignorance.

Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, all moral codes are man based, as religion is a creation of man, and ‘god’ as a consequence of that.

Indeed, the only ‘problem’ for those free from faith is the arrogance of theists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

It’s sad and telling that your only motive with regard to not doing ‘bad things’ is a belief in a deity that doesn’t exist.

You should seek to do good acts because you believe in yourself, not an imaginary ‘god.’

And values are man derived, as faith/religion is a creation of man; just as you learned the tenets of your faith from others, so too were you taught your values – faith, religion, morals, values: all are creations of man.

 

[Steinlight]

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.

If there is no God and thus no universal code of morality, what's this business about "responsibility" for your actions? Since there is no objective meaning or morality in your view, how can you compel people to accept your admittedly subjective moral standard?

 

[DriftingSand]

Well, you tripped up here pretty badly.
I am not an atheist, but I am most definitely agnostic in the true sense of the word. I honestly think the truth can not be known. That is my honest position. My doubt is profound. I have no data that god exists and none that he doesn't (though I have a great deal of data that the bible is a poor description if he exists at all). I have no absolute to defend. I find absolutes on both sides simply preposterous, quite frankly.
I think the chances that anyone is completely correct approaches zero.
It was your assumptions that tripped you up here.

My apologies for assuming incorrectly. Thanks for clarifying your stance and worldview.

If there are no absolutes (right or wrong) then every individual is free to interpret moral standards from a personal standpoint and is free to act upon his interpretation with total impunity. In other words, if it's not absolutely wrong to murder an innocent 4-year-old child then there must be a circumstance when it may be right to do so. Or, if it's not absolutely right to help an old lady who's fallen down in front of an oncoming train (when there's plenty of time to help her) then there must be a good reason why it might be right to watch her get hit by the train.

 

[DriftingSand]

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?

It’s sad and telling that your only motive with regard to not doing ‘bad things’ is a belief in a deity that doesn’t exist.

You should seek to do good acts because you believe in yourself, not an imaginary ‘god.’

And values are man derived, as faith/religion is a creation of man; just as you learned the tenets of your faith from others, so too were you taught your values – faith, religion, morals, values: all are creations of man.

What defines "good acts" and why are those acts good and other acts bad? From whence do you draw you sense of morality? If man's existence is a total mistake and rooted in meaningless happenstance then there really shouldn't be any right or any wrong whatsoever.

What makes your definition of morality more correct than Jeffery Dahmer's?

 

[DriftingSand]

Problems for Atheists

It’s interesting how theists ignorant of those free from faith feel compelled to exhibit that ignorance.

Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, all moral codes are man based, as religion is a creation of man, and ‘god’ as a consequence of that.

Indeed, the only ‘problem’ for those free from faith is the arrogance of theists.

Funny ... there does seem to be a tone of arrogance in your post but I'll overlook that.

All moral codes are man based? Does that mean that a man who's moral codes are diametrically opposed to yours is just as free to express his moral codes in his daily actions as you are free to express yours in daily actions? If his moral codes allow him to see women as total objects to be used by him whenever he chooses are his moral codes STILL valid? He is a man, afterall.

The mind of man is fickle. It can change on a dime and often does. It is easily influenced by peer pressure or the social winds of change. 30 years ago folks would have laughed at the idea of legalizing pot in Colorado. Today it's legal. 150 years ago slavery was legal while today it's not. So the mind of man in a societal or collective sense is just as fickle as his mind is in an individual sense. So how can we trust man's sense of morality at any given time?

 

[Hollie]

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.

If there is no God and thus no universal code of morality, what's this business about "responsibility" for your actions? Since there is no objective meaning or morality in your view, how can you compel people to accept your admittedly subjective moral standard?

Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?

It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.

 

[Sallow]

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

Those codes are defined by society.

No idea why that isn't clear.

 

[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

Those codes are defined by society.

No idea why that isn't clear.

But are the codes of various societies "right?" The OP asks if there even is such a thing as "right" and "wrong." If so, how do you, Sallow, define those terms and from what source do you draw your conclusions? The "codes" of the Aztecs were much, much different than the "codes" of the USSR. Was it right for the Aztecs to sacrifice humans and was it right for Stalin to starve Russians?

 

[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?

It’s sad and telling that your only motive with regard to not doing ‘bad things’ is a belief in a deity that doesn’t exist.

You should seek to do good acts because you believe in yourself, not an imaginary ‘god.’

And values are man derived, as faith/religion is a creation of man; just as you learned the tenets of your faith from others, so too were you taught your values – faith, religion, morals, values: all are creations of man.

No. My other motives weren't discussed

 

[Chuckt]

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)

Well, you tripped up here pretty badly.
I am not an atheist, but I am most definitely agnostic in the true sense of the word. I honestly think the truth can not be known. That is my honest position. My doubt is profound. I have no data that god exists and none that he doesn't (though I have a great deal of data that the bible is a poor description if he exists at all). I have no absolute to defend. I find absolutes on both sides simply preposterous, quite frankly.
I think the chances that anyone is completely correct approaches zero.
It was your assumptions that tripped you up here.

Except you fight like an atheist.
Agnostics primarily don't fight against something they don't know because what they don't know doesn't bother them.

 

[Chuckt]

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.

If there is no God and thus no universal code of morality, what's this business about "responsibility" for your actions? Since there is no objective meaning or morality in your view, how can you compel people to accept your admittedly subjective moral standard?

Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?

It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.

Name a few civilizations that didn't have gods.

 

[editec]

RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.

 

[DriftingSand]

RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.

Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well, you tripped up here pretty badly.
I am not an atheist, but I am most definitely agnostic in the true sense of the word. I honestly think the truth can not be known. That is my honest position. My doubt is profound. I have no data that god exists and none that he doesn't (though I have a great deal of data that the bible is a poor description if he exists at all). I have no absolute to defend. I find absolutes on both sides simply preposterous, quite frankly.
I think the chances that anyone is completely correct approaches zero.
It was your assumptions that tripped you up here.

My apologies for assuming incorrectly. Thanks for clarifying your stance and worldview.

If there are no absolutes (right or wrong) then every individual is free to interpret moral standards from a personal standpoint and is free to act upon his interpretation with total impunity. In other words, if it's not absolutely wrong to murder an innocent 4-year-old child then there must be a circumstance when it may be right to do so. Or, if it's not absolutely right to help an old lady who's fallen down in front of an oncoming train (when there's plenty of time to help her) then there must be a good reason why it might be right to watch her get hit by the train.

Every individual DOES interpret moral standards from a personal perspective. I already addressed that. We have a cultural code that is the agreed upon standard that continually evolves but is mostly set at any given time. Then we have what we believe personally which may differ. Whether we react to our personal code depends entirely on the weighing of the consequences and making the choice from there.
When we drop bombs on another country we have made the decision that it is ok to murder a 4 year old. I can invent reasons to let the old lady die.
The playing with the extremes doesn't change my argument.
In the south of the 50's blacks sat in the back of the bus. That was a morally accepted standard for that culture. Rosa Parks had a different code within her and acted on it. Certainly many before her had the same beliefs but didn't act on them. They weighed the consequences and chose against acting on it.
Acting with total impunity is not the realistic default in a world without a god to determine absolute values. The culture exacts a punishment for deviants from the accepted norms. You are only free to act to the degree you are willing to accept those consequences.
Morality is the consensus view of a given culture, and that view gets official sanction.

 

[Pennywise]

Cannibalism was mentioned early in the discussion which always leads me to this conundrum-

If we simply live by 'the Golden Rule', where do unto others...is the line in the sand visa vi morality, then it is not necessarily wrong to kill and eat another human being. There was a case just a short few years ago of a man in Germany who advertised for someone to kill and eat him. He wanted to be cannibalized. His greatest ambition was for another person to eat his flesh.

He easily found a willing partner, who killed and then ate him. The man who ate the man who wished to be eaten was prosecuted. Why? It was a voluntary agreement between the men, live and let die, so to speak.