Right or Wrong, whos to say?

[Eksadiss]

I post this mini-essay here expecting it to be picked and torn apart. You people in the total war center are a highly intelligent bunch, and that is why im bringing this up. I'm sure people have probably brought this up before and theres been some discussion but please forgive me, I still want to post mine.

I wrote this sortof on a whim, it was my first time putting this thinking into words so i'm prepared to be torn apart. Although, I did post this on my Windows Live Spaces blog, im just copying and pasting here.

What gives the human beings the ability to decide what is right and wrong? I get told that murder is WRONG, Violence and war is WRONG, happiness is RIGHT!, but how can we tell. Right and wrong does not exist unless you believe in a superior being of all knowing that decides for us. Right and wrong is red and blue to most people, but when it comes to morality, I'm colorblind. I've given this alot of thought and some of it is still blurry in my mind but so far I've basically tossed out my pre-programmed bias about right and wrong and decided to look at it from a....universal angle.

Remember the questions like "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?". I see a similarity with questions like this, and morality itself. If humans did not exist in the world at all, where human opinions never existed at all, could you still say there is right and wrong?. I believe human beings just chose to take on the role themselves to decide for the rest of us what is acceptable which therefor, is only an OPINION, a preception. This is something we are not qualified to do, just look at how it turned out. "God" the provider of what is right, is also one of the LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH throughout history(while saying killing is wrong).

The most obvious example of this whole idea is Nazi Germany and the holocaust. By todays standards, the holocaust was horrible and wrong and should have never of happened. Now looking at it from a nazi's point of few, it is the right thing to do. The only thing we have here are two conflicting OPINIONS, and the amount of people believing one thing over the other does not prove anything. If Germany had won the war and taken over the world, the vast majority of people would be Nazi's right now and it would be generally accepted that the holocaust was an achievement. Like I say, there is nothing out there(in my belief) that can tell me which one of these two opinions is right and which is wrong with concrete TRUTH. The holocaust is not right or wrong, it just simply....is as it is.

It's been said to me that humans were designed(the god thing) with a sense of right and wrong pre-programmed into us which explains why we have decided on what is acceptable or not. I sort of came up with my own theory to this. I believe it is the selfishness of human nature that has decided what is right and wrong and has passed it down the genes throughout evolution. What I mean by selfishness is, ideas that benefit humans, for example, Murder is wrong because it kills off other humans, and humans have to live co-operatively to survive. Murder is counter productive/survival and therefor been labelled WRONG. These things that are "wrong" are all things that seem to be counter-productive to human evolution. That is where I believe our conception of morality has come from.

Please, start picking away

[Muizer]

No need to argue with that. I think it's spot on.....

Edit: a rather short reply eh? Well I would add that there is a complicating factor in that the human predisposition/instinct for right and wrong passed on by evolution can in itself become an environmental factor that could further guide evolution. The existence of such feedback mechanisms makes it difficult to attribute behaviour to either biological or cultural evolution.

[Felix]

Yeah, you could choose to give equal weight to all opinions in the discussion on morality, and end up morally nihilist. You may even regard it as the most honest opinion you can have under the circumstances. But consider: what right has the higher being to determine morality for us?

Is it because He is more intelligent? Well, in the absence of His instruction, does this not mean that the more intelligent amongst humanity has more right to determine what is moral than the less intelligent?

Is it because His word is what is right? This leads to some terribly arbitrary conclusions; if He ordered you to sacrifice your only child, breaking a promise He made to you in doing so, would that be right? Real Biblical example.

Is it because He can simply be trusted to tell you what is right? If so, why? Whose word do you have for trusting Him other than His own?

Eventually you'll come to the conclusion that His word is nothing special either, in the absence of a reliable method of getting it from Him to us. And no, revelation is not reliable enough, and neither do I trust a book that says "I win, therefore, you should do what I tell you."

So why should you trust what He's programmed into you? It might intrinsically not be what's beneficial to humans; it might just be what's conducive to your worship of Him. Or the survival of humans might be what He wants so He has someone to love Him. Don't make the classic assumption that because God exists He has all the qualities assigned to Him by classical theology: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence. His conception of what is good is necessarily alien to ours, for His understanding is infinite. As such, you either have to blindly trust His word on the matter or you're cut free.

In your case, you're stuck doing what's good-for-a-human-to-do because He programmed it into you; does this not strike you as massively patronising of Him to do? To not trust us with the truth, but give us some quasi-arbitrary set of rules that might allow us, if we're lucky and don't "give in" to those dangerous sexy thoughts about the woman next door, to spend eternity praising Him for His wisdom?

I'm with the morningstar on this one. The more you think about God, the more astounding His arrogance.

Muizer: It could, but only memetic/cultural evolution. Biological evolution happens far too slowly for human culture to have any noticeable effect on our biological state. If, that is, you ignore the false "miscegenation" claims of the racists and the sensationalistic claims of the newspapers which splash "HUMANS MUTATING!" every time there's a new story about GM food (or something else similarly irrelevant).

[bdh]

But consider: what right has the higher being to determine morality for us?

Its quite simple really. Because all contradictory opinions will cease to exist and become irrelevant at the end of time, at least thats how it is Biblically. And that is pretty much the standard, its also the secular humanist, evolutionary standard to a certain degree. If its not conducive to existence, it is bad.

I'm with the morningstar on this one. The more you think about God, the more astounding His arrogance.

Well, he is God.

[Felix]

Ozy: I was just disagreeing with the phrase "can further guide evolution". In the whole of human history we have not evolved noticeably. The humans there are now are the same humans who worshipped Ra are the same humans who we know nothing about because they couldn't write, seven thousand years before them.

Its quite simple really. Because all contradictory opinions will cease to exist and become irrelevant at the end of time, at least thats how it is Biblically. And that is pretty much the standard, its also the secular humanist, evolutionary standard to a certain degree. If its not conducive to existence, it is bad.

So because He lives longer than us, He's better than us? The fact that He's going to outlive anyone who disagrees with Him doesn't make Him right. If he said the rabbit was male and the rabbit turned out to be female, He wouldn't be right just because everyone who disagreed with Him had died in the infinite span of time inbetween the vote and the inspection of the rabbit's wossnames.

Edit: Woo! 100 posts!

[bdh]

So because He lives longer than us, He's better than us? The fact that He's going to outlive anyone who disagrees with Him doesn't make Him right.

No, its that he determines what persists and what is true. If you don't agree with him, you cease to exist (hell) if you do, then you live. All contradictory ideas that are completely subjective will cease.

If he said the rabbit was male and the rabbit turned out to be female, He wouldn't be right just because everyone who disagreed with Him had died in the infinite span of time inbetween the vote and the inspection of the rabbit's wossnames.

Actually the rabbit would instantly turn into a male. Any declarative statement by God would have to be accurate since everything belongs to him. Why he would make a mistake in the first place (since he perceives all things) is beyond me.

The rabbit analogy is wrong in the first place since the rabbits sex can be objectively determined. With morality, morality can only be objectively determined with respect to a purpose or meaning in life, which is effectively nonexistant and/or subjective. In that regards, your argument that God's opinion isn't any more valuable than ours has nothing to do with the rabbit, and, the value of said opinion, is thus nullified in the face of eternity.

Is killing another for money wrong? It is in my book, therefore to me it is wrong. I am merely a product of perception so I can only rely on my own perceptions of things.

Except that the entire idea presupposes free will, of which is there is none. So, ultimately, your morality is determined by environmental and genetic factors. The most significant environmental factors being shaped by family and society whose ultimate and original source of morality was evolution and human development.

What other people perceive is rather pointless to me as an individual.

Unless of course their perceptions lead them to kill you of course or harm you in some way.

[Tom Paine]

Felix, memetic evolution is a fact of life, and that memetic evolution creates language and culture, let alone morality; but memetic does not mean there's no biological factor, since memes only work because of a certain human predisposition towards them.

[Seleucus I Nicator]

I think Right and Wrong are completely subjective.

[Lee1026]

Right and wrong can be objective; unitarianism spells out a way of doing just that.

[Nurab Sol]

What you might want to consider when debating this is the necessity for some type of moral code that is upheld objectively as “right”. No society can survive in a state of moral anarchy. On purely practical grounds one could argue that there must be some objectivity for civilization to endure and thrive, just look at all the governments/states/institutions that have been around a long time. How many of them have advocated moral subjectivity? Not to mention the natural antagonism towards any imposed subjectivity. Would you let the government (or anyone for that matter) kill you or those you care about because they are genetically “impure” or not conducive to someone’s definition of “survival”?

If you claim that no higher power exits and that morality is not objective, where do you end up? The result is Anarchy and tyranny. Another thing to consider is your loss of authority. If one makes a claim to subjectivity, is that not a very objective statement? “Yes, morality IS subjective and it absolutely cannot be any other way!” Once you give up you ability to make judgments about right and wrong by appealing to a divine power (e.g. God), you must obey those who can enforce their will on you and accept their judgments. Funny thing about that is the current balance of opinion in the world holds that God does exist and that morality is objective. So regardless of the grounds on which you claim subjectivity, you will be forced to accept objectivity or suffer at the hands of those who you oppose.

[Nurab Sol]

Not to mention the Theory of Evolution's status as unproven, hence the "Theory" part.

[Lee1026]

Well, there is NOTHING in the world that can be proven outside of the existence of self and mathematics.

[Kscott]

I think people need to stop thinking on such universal scale.

Is killing another for money wrong? It is in my book, therefore to me it is wrong. I am merely a product of perception so I can only rely on my own perceptions of things. What other people perceive is rather pointless to me as an individual.

[DariusEG]

It's been said to me that humans were designed(the god thing) with a sense of right and wrong pre-programmed into us which explains why we have decided on what is acceptable or not.

If you are going to write on such topics, you need to learn how to write appropriately. Who said this to you? If you used your own observation instead of what people tell you, you would see that it is not preprogrammed. There would of been no need of Jesus, the Quran, the Torah, etc.

[bdh]

If you are going to write on such topics, you need to learn how to write appropriately. Who said this to you? If you used your own observation instead of what people tell you, you would see that it is not preprogrammed. There would of been no need of Jesus, the Quran, the Torah, etc.

Actually there would be for purposes of codification, which would be nescessary to account for natural variability of behavior in the human population/genome as well as a comparison for extreme beliefs caused by non-pre-programed factors (physical problems [insanity] or enivonrmental factors [social inertia/tragedy])

[Mathias]

Moral Nihilism is only healthy for those who see the need for morals.

[Tom Paine]

Moral Nihilism is only healthy for those who see the need for morals.

No, moral nihilism can only be healthy for those who see no need for morals, which does not include all atheists...

[Mathias]

No, moral nihilism can only be healthy for those who see no need for morals, which does not include all atheists...

If someone sees no need to follow the morals of the society he finds himself in, the result could be chaos.

[Tom Paine]

If someone sees no need to follow the morals of the society he finds himself in, the result could be chaos.

Not really; Nietszche didn't, for instance. The problem comes when they see no problem breaking the laws of the society.

[Mathias]

Not really; Nietszche didn't, for instance. The problem comes when they see no problem breaking the laws of the society.

But arent the laws of the society in many ways connected to the morals of the society?