I don't believe in right and wrong.

Jane_the_Bane · Oct 26, 2004

There was this guy who had a shrapnell embedded in his brain after WW2 - and he wasn't capable of understanding the concept of "red" any longer. He wasn't colourblind. He was perfectly capable of distinguishing colours, but he just couldn't put a name to the colour red any more.

Eskimos know more than half a dozen words for snow - and therefore perceive it completely differently from us. That's how it works. Collectively. Not objectively.

Dragar · Oct 26, 2004

There was this guy who had a shrapnell embedded in his brain after WW2 - and he wasn't capable of understanding the concept of "red" any longer. He wasn't colourblind. He was perfectly capable of distinguishing colours, but he just couldn't put a name to the colour red any more.

Eskimos know more than half a dozen words for snow - and therefore perceive it completely differently from us. That's how it works. Collectively. Not objectively.

I agree. Our notions of 'right' and 'wrong' are ultimately inherited from our culture.

an7222 · Oct 26, 2004

Dragar said:
And where are you getting those critera from? And how do you know they're correct?

Ok. I don't want here to discuss why life is a moral value. But suppose "my morality" has life as an objectively defined moral value. Do you agree that "my morality" is objective?

Dragar · Oct 26, 2004

Ok. I don't want here to discuss why life is a moral value. But suppose "my morality" has life as an objectively defined moral value. Do you agree that "my morality" is objective?

If, for the sake of argument, your moral code has an 'objective' moral value, then yes, part of it is objective.

But that's circular.

I don't believe objective morality exists. My view is that you think you have an objective moral value though. What you're doing is:

a) Assuming there is an objective morality
b) For reasons you're unable to tell me, concluding that a part of that objective morality includes 'valuing life'.

I'm disagreeing with your assumption and, even if your assumption is correct, unable to fathom how you worked out what is 'objectively moral' and what is not.

plmarquette · Oct 26, 2004

the moral philosophies of Nietche [ social darwinism , men and supermen ], Bentham [ pleasure = moral , ethical ] , and others always breaks down
on the death bed .... what if ...

doing the right thing , because it is the right thing , when no one is watching is
basic Christianity ...

Philosoft · Oct 26, 2004

MoodyBlue said:
I'm pretty liberal, but I don't know how you can define rape as anything other than "just plain wrong". And that ought to be the case for all people.

It is. But rape is wrong because we've already defined 'rape' as 'sexual penetration against a person's will.' However, since no person ever wants to do something contrary to his will by definition, 'rape is wrong' is a tautology.

Philosoft · Oct 26, 2004

radorth said:
When do these evolutionary forces really kick in? I don't see how the destruction of 100 million people in the last century is an advantage to anybody. The problem is that another 500 million people went along with the destruction without trying to stop it. If there is an "evolutionary advantage" it certainly is an evil, destructive one.

These acts were largely caused by individuals. And, as we all should know, individuals are not obliged to adhere to an evolutionary mean.

funyun · Oct 26, 2004

Zoot said:
The OP was a question. It really disturbs me when people say they agree with questions. : )

Zoot said:
Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

This is what I agree with. Happy?

Tight***

funyun · Oct 26, 2004

an7222 said:
Just because we don't know the moral law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. The physical laws always existed, but we discovered them recently.

Incorrect. Even if there is an omnipotent god, and he has a set of laws, that set of laws is still subjective. The idea of objective morality is a complete paradox.

bluetrinity · Oct 26, 2004

Zoot said:
Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

Now, I don't act very differently from Christians. I give to charities, I've sponsored a kid in Argentina since I was 20, I am a signed up supporter of Amnesty, I protest illegal invasions of countries, I often pick up litter I see on the street and put it in a rubbish bin, I only eat free-range eggs, I tell people when they've given me too much change, I hug people who need hugs and help people who need help. I don't think any of these deeds are "good" in the sense meant by Christians.

And yet often when Christians hear that I don't believe in objective morality, they start talking about how my attitude would spawn rape and murder and etc.

Why do you think I act the way I do? (this question is open for both objective-moralists and subjective-moralists - OMists and SMists).

Isn't the question rather why do YOU think you act the way you do. Because my answer is that God planted morals in your heart and you act accordingly.

Zoot · Oct 26, 2004

the moral philosophies of Nietche [ social darwinism , men and supermen ], Bentham [ pleasure = moral , ethical ] , and others always breaks down
on the death bed .... what if ...

Even if this was true, I'd hardly think it was an argument against a philosophy that it breaks down when someone reaches a highly emotional irrational state.

radorth · Oct 26, 2004

This thread is just proof most skeptics would not repent of one freaking thing if Jesus came back and gave them three more chances.

Rad

C.S. Lewis on repentance: The more you need it the less you can do it.

The Bellman · Oct 26, 2004

radorth said:
This thread is just proof most skeptics would not repent of one freaking thing if Jesus came back and gave them three more chances.

Rad

C.S. Lewis on repentance: The more you need it the less you can do it.

By 'skeptics', I assume you mean non-christians (since the two aren't synonymous). And no, this thead doesn't prove anything of the kind.

radorth · Oct 26, 2004

The Bellman said:
By 'skeptics', I assume you mean non-christians (since the two aren't synonymous). And no, this thead doesn't prove anything of the kind.

Of course it does. That's how I know you can't tell us what you would repent of, because to you morals are also relative and not absolute. Therefore you would not know what to repent of even if Jesus did come back. We would, thanks to God, because our standard is the Sermon on the Mount, and we choose to do it now before the day comes.

Rad

Praxiteles · Oct 26, 2004

Blessed are the meek.

Zoot · Oct 26, 2004

This thread is just proof most skeptics would not repent of one freaking thing if Jesus came back and gave them three more chances.

I wouldn't repent of doing things that seem good to me, no. Would you?

Kris_J · Oct 27, 2004

me said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think what is missing is "time" in your discussion. What you think right & wrong at one time may change later on as the future unravels & you see the consequences of your actions. Given enough time & information, say if you were omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent, you are no longer have reason to re-assess what your perception of what is right & wrong is. As it is, what you did as a 13yo seemed right at the time, but now you decide it was wrong at your (hopefully) progressed level of "maturity" - & taking this idea of progression, say if you progressed to a God-like level (omni-present etc), then you will reach the ultimate point of knowing right from wrong, with ultimate insight, hindsight & foresight - thus if any entity reaches this ultimate level, eg. God, then that means that there is such a thing as objective morality, rather than relative morality.

Really, you don't have to believe in the real existence of God to believe in objective morality. You just have to concede to the reality that as you grow in maturity, you constantly (ideally) refine your boundaries of what right & wrong & that hypothetically given enough time & resources, you will reach a plateau from where you can no longer refine your notion of right & wrong (when you are omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient).

The idea with Abramic religions, since it has a beginning & an end/"Alpha & Omega" (unlike cyclical world views) is that there is an ultimate judge/standard for what is right & wrong, & that we just have one shot at getting life right (ie. not reincarnated). Perhaps the implication with this linear timeline is also that each life is more valuable & unique, rather than recyclable/amendable.

Zoot said:

Kris,

To me, maturing views are simply changing views, perhaps becoming more consistent with other, but not becoming superior in any objective sense.

Click to expand...

So your ideas of right and wrong are according to you, no "better" now than it was when you were 13?

The Bellman · Oct 27, 2004

radorth said:
Of course it does. That's how I know you can't tell us what you would repent of, because to you morals are also relative and not absolute. Therefore you would not know what to repent of even if Jesus did come back. We would, thanks to God, because our standard is the Sermon on the Mount, and we choose to do it now before the day comes.

Rad

No, it doesn't. We know as well as you do the things we 'should' (according to christianity) repent of. The fact that morals are relative doesn't change that in any way, because morals are independent of god (and yes, I know you don't believe that, but the OT has god performing any number of immoral acts - immoral in MY opinion, which, since morals are relative, is as good as anyone else's). If Jesus did come back, of course, non-christians could listen to him and, if they deemed it appropriate, repent of what he said to repent of.

And christians don't have a single moral standard (certainly not the Sermon on the Mount) - which is why so many christians disagree on what is moral.

Western Deity · Oct 27, 2004

Kris_J said:
So your ideas of right and wrong are according to you, no "better" now than it was when you were 13?

Well they could be, but only according to "him".

Kris_J · Oct 27, 2004

Zoot said:
I wouldn't repent of doing things that seem good to me, no. Would you?

Western Deity said:
Well they could be, but only according to "him".

Western, time is not considered in Zoots argument. Everyone at one time or another does what seemed good, but later on with hindsight they realise that they were wrong. Doing something that seems good doesn't guarantee freedom from regret.

Of course this is supposing that there is continuity of self from one event to another.

I don't believe in right and wrong.

Gaia's godchild

Like the root of -1

Rational morality is a must

Like the root of -1

Veteran

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

Lost sheep

Omnis Obstat

Contributor

The Bellman

Guest

Contributor

PraxAce

Omnis Obstat

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

you know how it is

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency