Age Old Debate: Right and Wrong

[humbledbyhim]

It's a simple question, and you would get about 3
billion different answers
if you asked everyone on earth: Who or what determines right and wrong?
If you think that there is an objective source of right and wrong, then explain what it is. If you think it's something that
people made up (subjective), then explain that too.​

 

[CSmrw]

I do not believe there is an objective source, but I do think that the need to survive creates the illusion of one for humans.

 

[Zaac]

It's a simple question, and you would get about 3
billion different answers
if you asked everyone on earth: Who or what determines right and wrong?
If you think that there is an objective source of right and wrong, then explain what it is. If you think it's something that
people made up (subjective), then explain that too.​

Jesus Christ is the standard. And there has yet to exist, nor will there ever, exist a man who can disprove a word of His Holy Word as anything but truth.

Why? Because the truth that is endowed in His Word is the very truth that is endowed in Him. Consider it the character of Christ in written form.

There is no other standard of right and wrong that does not contain fallacies.

 

[TheMissus]

Individuals determine their personal definitions of right and wrong.

 

[TricksterWolf]

It's a simple question, and you would get about 3
billion different answers
if you asked everyone on earth: Who or what determines right and wrong?
If you think that there is an objective source of right and wrong, then explain what it is. If you think it's something that
people made up (subjective), then explain that too.​

Right and wrong? What are those?

Trickster

 

[cobaltburrito]

Subjective experience.

 

[The Nihilist]

Jesus Christ determines right and wrong? What difference does that make if no one has access to it? And don't act like the answers are all in the Bible; Christians regularly have conflicting opinions on things. Forget the big issues, most Christians can't agree on whether or not speeding is a sin. They say their opinions come from the Bible, but they really just make up right and wrong for themselves, the same as everyone else.

 

[Skaloop]

It's a simple question, and you would get about 3
billion different answers
if you asked everyone on earth: Who or what determines right and wrong?
If you think that there is an objective source of right and wrong, then explain what it is. If you think it's something that
people made up (subjective), then explain that too.​

Nobody. Nothing is inherently right or wrong, so there is no right or wrong. We (individuals, society, lawmakers, whatever) may attempt to define them according to our needs and purposes, and we as individuals may choose to agree or disagree, to follow the laws or not, but that does not necessarily make things right or wrong. Just as we may see and interpret colours, colour does not exist outside of our minds; the same for right and wrong.

 

[levi501]

Jesus Christ is the standard. And there has yet to exist, nor will there ever, exist a man who can disprove a word of His Holy Word as anything but truth.

Why? Because the truth that is endowed in His Word is the very truth that is endowed in Him. Consider it the character of Christ in written form.

There is no other standard of right and wrong that does not contain fallacies.

I agree!
And I challenge any of you to find a flaw in the reasoning quoted above!

It can't be done! I WIN!!!! rofl!!111! ppwn3d!!!@2

 

[Robinsegg]

Forget the big issues, most Christians can't agree on whether or not speeding is a sin. They say their opinions come from the Bible, but they really just make up right and wrong for themselves, the same as everyone else.

I've never heard a Christian argue that speeding isn't a sin. That's a new one on me. Scripture is clear that we are to obey the laws of the land. Speed limits are one of the laws of the land. We are to obey them.

As far as the question: Is there objective truth regarding good and evil, I vote yes. If, as Scripture states, we all came from the same place and from the same set of people, we all have the same access to early information on right/wrong. All people in the beginning knew what was good and evil. Through the birth of Methuselah, Adam was available for direct consultation (Adam being a person who walked and talked with God at one point). If all this is true, each culture has some basic knowledge of good/evil & right/wrong. This knowledge comes from God (Scripture hadn't yet been written) and a knowledge of God. Sure, people thought up explanations that excluded God from the equation or were decieved by other "dieties", but the basic cultural knowledge that there is good and evil, and some of the basics, are still there today.

Rachel

 

[The Nihilist]

Do you have to strictly obey the speed limit? Is it Ok to go five miles over? Ten? Or do you just have to not get caught? This seems to be a pretty grey area, even among Christians.
Robinsegg, are you joking? The most implausible thing I've heard today is that basic knowledge of right and wrong descends to all cultures through Adam, and so we all have access to early information on right and wrong. As if later information were better, or as if 6,000 years wasn't enough to completely forget something like that.
Morality can often vary widely from culture to culture, though the intent is always the preservation of the society. However, it seems that evolution can explain this at least as well as any ad-hoc religious explanation: the groups of people that learned to work together were the ones that survived.

 

[flicka]

Truth be told l decide what is right or wrong. At least for any meaningful way that effects my life. Society has certain minimum standards of conduct that anyone with a brain can agree with because they make the world a livable place, and those things usually line up nicely with the laws we have created. If they don't we can try and change the laws and keep any involvement we have with certain activities under wraps.

 

[Cerberus~]

Right and wrong are hollow concepts until filled with personal experience, ideology, religion, logic, or whateer one uses to base their morality on.

The words of Jesus are a good source to base your morality on. But Christianity instills too much arrogance in the believer, thus fouling up the good words of Jesus and making his morality reek of self-importance.

In my view, thinking you are privy to a source of truth that many others don't adhere to makes you a dangerous man to those who don't believe as you.

 

[RavenPoe]

Right and wrong can basically be held up to the golden rule.

Jesus said it as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most other religions have some sort of teaching to treat others as you would be treated.

As for speeding - it's wrong. Do I intentionally then do something that's "wrong"? Yes. Everyone else does 5-10 miles over so I do as well. Exceeding that gets you pulled over so I avoid that.

 

[Robinsegg]

The words of Jesus are a good source to base your morality on. But Christianity instills too much arrogance in the believer, thus fouling up the good words of Jesus and making his morality reek of self-importance.

Well, I'll agree that Christians can get "superiority complexes". But that's not taught in Scripture. Christians aren't any better or worse than anyone else. They're in a different position and have accountability for the additional information they have. But that's mostly the difference between Christian and nonChristian.

Rachel

 

[quatona]

It's a simple question, and you would get about 3
billion different answers
if you asked everyone on earth: Who or what determines right and wrong?
If you think that there is an objective source of right and wrong, then explain what it is. If you think it's something that
people made up (subjective), then explain that too.​

Right and wrong are like good music and bad music. It is a description of one´s personal preferences. If I say "this is good, this is bad" I don´t give you information about this thing, but information about myself.
Good/bad are, by their very nature, expressions of subjectivity.

It seems desirable, though, for people who interact to find out on which they agree. And in cases where they don´t agree to come to a compromise. That´s where laws and such kick in.

 

[wanderphilos]

I have stated this before so we will see if any understand it. Right and Wrong are subjective to the nature of the individual doing the action. Why? If God kills all the first born of Pharoah...it is right and it is good. If the Jews kill Jesus...it is right and it is good. If a person is raped...it is wrong...but to the person doing the raping...they believe they are doing the right thing. If a person steals...it is wrong...but to the person doing the stealing...they are doing the right thing...or else they wouldn't do it...or be compelled to. Thus making the individual doing 'wrong' doing 'right' by way of the nature they have adopted.

 

[The Nihilist]

As for speeding - it's wrong. Do I intentionally then do something that's "wrong"? Yes. Everyone else does 5-10 miles over so I do as well. Exceeding that gets you pulled over so I avoid that.

Are you serious? You really seriously think Jesus died on the cross so you could do 41 in a 40 mph zone and still go to heaven? Heaven doesn't sound like any fun at all if you have to live there with a God who is as obsessive about little stuff as you seem to think he is.
More to the point, though, I don't think all those other Christians who speed just a little bit are willing to agree with you. While it is technically true that the speed limit in a 40 mph zone is 40, it's really not practically true, because no one is going to pull you over for exceeding that a little bit. Practically, the limit is more like 50 or 55. This is the way that speed limits are generally understood and accepted by both those under the law and those who enforce the law, and I think you're going to have a hard time arguing otherwise.

 

[The Nihilist]

I have stated this before so we will see if any understand it. Right and Wrong are subjective to the nature of the individual doing the action. Why? If God kills all the first born of Pharoah...it is right and it is good. If the Jews kill Jesus...it is right and it is good. If a person is raped...it is wrong...but to the person doing the raping...they believe they are doing the right thing. If a person steals...it is wrong...but to the person doing the stealing...they are doing the right thing...or else they wouldn't do it...or be compelled to. Thus making the individual doing 'wrong' doing 'right' by way of the nature they have adopted.

Sounds like you're neglecting the possibility that someone can both know what is right and not do it. If you think this is not possible, you're going to have to say why you think so. "Because Socrates thought so," is not an answer.

 

[Zaac]

Jesus Christ determines right and wrong? What difference does that make if no one has access to it? And don't act like the answers are all in the Bible;

Everyone has access to it. 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

Christians regularly have conflicting opinions on things.

This doesn't change the fact that people know what's right and wrong.

Forget the big issues, most Christians can't agree on whether or not speeding is a sin. They say their opinions come from the Bible, but they really just make up right and wrong for themselves, the same as everyone else.

if that's what you want to believe