Right and Wrong Subjective?

[darxbane]

I think you can have a discussion about right and wrong without talking about religion, although you will most likely find that most religious tenets are very sound and based on past experience and instinctual knowledge.  Humans are superior to other animals simply because we are aware and able to have these conversations.  Non-sentient Animals do not question their existence, nor are they aware of their mortality.  If another species obtained sentience, they would become equals to us.  That doesn't mean we should wantonly destroy all other life, because we are still tied to it, and therefore must control ourselves for self preservation.  Our sentience allows us to live outside of nature, to a degree, so we must have a greater self control over our natural instincts (as ironic as that is).   This is what right and wrong breaks down to at it's core.  Whether you believe in a higher power, struggle for the future of the planet and humanity, or just out to save your own A$$, the same rules apply.   Can we look back at history and see the reasons for the moral tenets written in religious and governmental laws? 

[Patriotic Kaz]

*claps* well said well said!!!

[Peter Ahlstrom]

So you're saying it's right to exert self control over our instincts and wrong not to?

[Patriotic Kaz]

Yes Ookla he is saying we don't have to go dry-hump every pretty girl that passes by...

[Renoard]

Ookla that's a very interesting distinction.  Is the driving moral that it's venial not to control animal nature or conversely that it is virtuous to do so.  If you see it as virtue to control, then it leaves you open to possibly accept that it's neutral rather than venial not to.  And if you see it as venial not to, you may not see any real virtue in doing so.

We say it's crime to murder, therefore venial.  But do we see any real virtue in not murdering or do we take it as a required minimum standard for normative behavior.  Interesting perspective.

[Bookstore Guy]

Yes Ookla he is saying we don't have to go dry-hump every pretty girl that passes by...

this sounds a tad rude, and a tad crass. no need to be that way in a discussion where most people are actually discussing rather than bashing each other.

[Patriotic Kaz]

If anyone found that offensive i apologize it was not meant to be so.



P.S. procreaction is a very real instinct and what we gennerally associate with pretty are signs of good health...

[Reaves]

If anyone found that offensive i apologize it was not meant to be so.



P.S. procreaction is a very real instinct and what we gennerally associate with pretty are signs of good health...

Yes, how odd. What does this add to the discussion again?

I'm going to jump in here by saying I do not think you need to be religious to know the difference between right and wrong. I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience. Animals don't have that; they are driven by instinct. That instinct is based upon the most beneficial course of action for their species. A wolf might fiercely defend her cubs, but a turtle will lay a dozen eggs in the sand and swim away, leaving them to the birds. That's not right or wrong -- thats nature.

[The Jade Knight]

Kaz:  I highly recommend you do some more research before arguing that other primates are not all that different from humans mentally.  Certainly, other primates seem to be able, through extensive effort and training, develop the self-awareness of a 3-year old.  But that's about the extent of it.

Reaves et al:  I recommend you read William James' "Reflex Action and Theism".  He makes the point (and quite well) that it is impossible to engage in any sort of moral activity without accessing something teleological (metaphysical or transcendent).  You need not consider yourself "religious" or believe in any particular "religion", but your moral determinations are essentially religious, or at least metaphysical, in nature.

If there's interest, I can post a relevant clip from the essay and my thoughts here.

[Hamster]

Man, I love discussions like this, even if I don't have much to contribute to.

Okay, so I've got a question, if right and wrong is subjective, then was the holocaust wrong? To us it was wrong, but to Hitler it was right, but I don't think that anyone would argue that it was "right".

I also think that religion does have to become involved, because I believe that the "conscience" that we have inside of us is from God. If there were no higher power, then we're just a bunch of life forms, and there is no good and evil, only what we believe to be right and wrong. Without religion in the picture, then yes, right and wrong are subjective.

Sorry if I wasn't very clear on my points or if didn't add much to the discussion, I'm still new to thinking about this topic. I suggest reading the first few(at least 3) chapters of C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity. He makes a great argument for a universal moral code in humans.

I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience.

But Reaves, where does that conscience come from? ( I'm not trying to prove a point or anything here, I genuinely want to know what you think)

[Reaves]

I also think that religion does have to become involved, because I believe that the "conscience" that we have inside of us is from God. If there were no higher power, then we're just a bunch of life forms, and there is no good and evil, only what we believe to be right and wrong. Without religion in the picture, then yes, right and wrong are subjective.

Sorry if I wasn't very clear on my points or if didn't add much to the discussion, I'm still new to thinking about this topic. I suggest reading the first few(at least 3) chapters of C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity. He makes a great argument for a universal moral code in humans.

I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience.

But Reaves, where does that conscience come from? ( I'm not trying to prove a point or anything here, I genuinely want to know what you think)

I guess what I was trying to say is that you don't need to believe in God or a higher power to know right from wrong, but that without God there would be no definition of right and wrong. He defines it.
To answer your question, you might say that God has placed eternity in our hearts. You might also say that we are made in the image of God and that because of that, we are moral creatures. Where did we get a "conscience" from? The one who created us.

[Patriotic Kaz]

Yes but that is a circular reasoning and never answers what i would call the big questions, those being; who created us, why does the ego exist, and what does the supreme being deem just (do not I MEAN DO NOT COMMENT ON THE LAST ONE IT WILL LEAD NOWHERE).

[Peter Ahlstrom]

who created us, why does the ego exist, and what does the supreme being deem just

Isn't that what religions say they answer?

[Renoard]

Kaz,

You have a romantic partner?  You share expectations? That does answer the second point.

As for Ego, well I call it soul or psyche or nefesh.  The Bible spends 66 volumes talking about little else besides, why it exists, how to maintain it in good order and what happens to it in death.  I don't get how you can think that Judeo Christian religion is targeted at anything but answering those questions in a non-circular way.

[Patriotic Kaz]

@ Ookla I wasn't referencing anything but religous concepts with that it was off topic in response... sorry for the mix up