Is there any real right and wrong?
This is part 6 to a 7 part series: Questions About God – Canadian philosopher Michael Horner responds to seven of the most commonly asked questions about God and Christianity.
Question 6: Is there any real right or wrong?
What would you do if, during World War II, you were hiding some Jewish people in your home and a Nazi soldier came to your door and asked if there were any Jews inside? Would you tell the truth and consign these innocent people to death, or would you lie to protect them? Most people respond to this question with the “logical conclusion,” that they would lie and protect the Jews.
For years now, many people have used such moral dilemmas to disprove the existence of moral absolutes. Lying may be wrong in most situations, they say, but not in all situations. But what do moral dilemmas really prove? I argue that they do not prove that there are no moral absolutes. That conclusion does not follow from the above example. To the contrary, there would be no dilemma if there were no moral absolutes. Moral dilemmas merely show that in some circumstances one must choose the greater good when more than one absolute impinges upon the situation.
Alone this Christmas?: Talk to someone online
Be Forgiven: Find the gift of forgiveness this Christmas
Because of moral dilemmas like this one, and other major disagreements over ethical questions like abortion, euthanasia, pre-marital sex and capital punishment, many think that ethics must be relative to individuals, culture or time. People do not realize that an increasing number of philosophers these days think that ethical relativism is naive and that morality is objectively true.
Surveys tell us that most people in Western society claim to be moral relativists; that is, they claim that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. But it is very easy to say there are no objective or absolute moral principles. It is much more difficult, however, to live as if there are none.
The way we live, our behaviour and the way we respond when people treat us, the judgements we make when other people are mistreated-these things reveal what we really believe about right and wrong. For example, we believe it was morally wrong for the Nazis to torture and kill six million Jews during World War II. But we not only think it is wrong, we think everyone should agree that it is wrong. This is not to say that something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong. There is a logical possibility that we are mistaken and it is just our cultural conditioning that tells us these things are wrong. This may be a logical possibility, but is it very likely that our deepest intuitions about this matter could be mistaken? That would mean torturing people is not really wrong; we just think it is. But if this basic intuition is wrong, that is, if it is merely the result of cultural conditioning, could it be possible that our other basic beliefs and intuitions, such as our belief in cultural conditioning, are also the result of this same conditioning process? If so, it seems this line of reasoning is self-refuting. It fails its own test.
Most people know that such atrocities as what the Holocaust are genuinely, objectively wrong. Christians believe that if objective principles of right and wrong exist, there must be a foundation for them. And the foundation that makes the most sense is the character of a perfect and holy God.
27 Responses to “Is there any real right and wrong?”
Leave a Reply
Start a Conversation
Media
Connecting Through Technology
Do you use technology to stay in touch with family and friends?
>Watch
Latest Comments
- albertdavid said: My father went to be with the LORD this past December (28th).... Read More »
- ONUKU RAPHAEL said: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TRYING TO CHANGE ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE... Read More »
- maria said: if you cant feed hundred people then feed just one by Mother... Read More »
…” it is very easy to say there are no objective or absolute moral principles. It is much more difficult, however, to live as if there are none.”…
I don’t agree. The void of ‘absolute moral principle’ is what allows for moral relativism. If there were an absolute then the entire system would be static and never allow for contextual consideration of situational response.
Your line of reasoning seems blunted or trunkated. I don’t think the author has thought through his or her perspective well. Context dictates an individuals moral standing. Nothing else.
the concept of right or wrong is subjective.it can variy for indivdual and for society individuastically.The collective thought of rightness cannot be criterion for specific questions.The concept of righteousness in society is practically set by person who can impose his standard though theoritically he is adjuged injust.Might is right is natures law
“The void of ‘absolute moral principle’ is what allows for moral relativism. If there were an absolute then the entire system would be static and never allow for contextual consideration of situational response.”
Ozrik, I think you have the *application* of a principle confused with the *ontology* (or existence) of the principle. Of course different situations warrant different reactions; however, without any moral principles at all (ie, moral relativism) any reaction to any situation is just as valid as any other. Killing a crying baby becomes equally moral as giving it milk. That is moral relativism. In order to make decisions based on the context of a situation we still have to come to our decisions based on absolute moral principles, otherwise our decisions would be entirely arbitrary, without any grounding.
If someone needs an example of an absolute moral principle, we can give a few examples …
“Hypocrisy is wrong” Is there any context where being a hypocrite would be right?
“Killing babies for fun is wrong” Shouldn’t need too much explanation here …
It can be difficult to know what is moral in a particular circumstance. We might be able to name many situations where I would say, I’m not sure what is moral in that case. But my lack of knowledge (or wisdom) about what the right answer is in a particular case doesn’t mean that no right answer exists. It’s indicative of me, not the moral rules.
Consider: You live in a small village in a period of war. Enemy troops have invaded your village and a 8 of your clan members have taken refuge under a building with you. There is no inclination that the troops know and will discover your safe haven. However, your baby was disturbed by the commotion and started crying. Now, if the baby continues crying, the group will surely be found and killed. However, the only way you can surely stop the crying is to smother your child, potentially killing him. Would you smother your child to save the others, or will you allow it to keep on crying resulting in the death of everyone hiding?
What is the moral “right” thing to do here?
Consider: A sick parent who is in much pain tells their little girl that they are “just fine” so as not to upset her.
Is this hypocrisy bad?
Your example of “killing babies for fun” is inflammatory, it’s also manipulative to a readers sense of morality.
Moral relativism says that any even must be measured against the context of the environment and the participants. It doesn’t say “any reaction to any situation is just as valid as any other”, as you claim.
I have no confussion about my meaning at all. You seem to be the one who is both confused and trying to confuse. Not helpful.
.right or wrong is just depend on one’s person perspective, he is the one’s who know only what’s right or wrong upon his on life,it’s his choice to do things whether he like it or not..
Orzik, glad you’ve replied!
“What is the moral “right” thing to do here?”
As I said above, the right moral thing is not always obvious; that does not mean there is no right or wrong moral act in a situation. See my last paragraph in my above comment.
Is this hypocrisy bad?
Here are all of the definitions of hypocrisy:
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
The above example re the parents and child is not hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy is always morally wrong.
“Your example of “killing babies for fun” is inflammatory, it’s also manipulative to a readers sense of morality.”
I totally agree. So is it always morally wrong, or does it depend on the context?
“Moral relativism says that any even must be measured against the context of the environment and the participants.”
It seems as though we are using the term “moral relativism” in different ways. In your usage of the term, it seems to mean that morality is always relative to the situation. I agree in the sense that each moral situation is unique and must be appraised; I don’t think that’s controversial.
The definition I’m using for moral relativism is: There are no universal moral truths. Perhaps moral subjectivism would be more accurate? You seem to affirm this statement, unless I am misunderstanding you? But if this is the case, what do we use to as you say, “measure” each situation? If you want to measure something, you need to have some kind of scale or standard by which to measure it against. Otherwise, what are you measuring the context of the environment and the participants against?
Darren, I wasn’t just being rhetorical, I’d like to hear your answers to the questions I posted above…
“What is the moral “right” thing to do here?”
and…
Is this hypocrisy bad?
I don’t need definitions. I think you are avoiding the questions
And no, there are no universal moral truths. Can you think of a single one that acctually applies to everyone at all times?
Please, don’t play the old shell game trick, trying to get out of answering questions with slick little games and semantics. You should respect people more than to try such stuff
Now…
“Perhaps moral subjectivism would be more accurate?” Nope. Morality is already subjective, we are talking about that subjective aspect (morality) in relationship to the context (relativism)
“You seem to affirm this statement, unless I am misunderstanding you?”
…No, see above. You misunderstood.
“But if this is the case, what do we use to as you say, “measure” each situation?”
…Our own subjective perception of the context.
“If you want to measure something, you need to have some kind of scale or standard by which to measure it against. Otherwise, what are you measuring the context of the environment and the participants against?”
…Against themselves and the contextual prejudice created by previous experience. All measurements are arbitrary abstracts used to make sense of differing contexts. We don’t use inches or centimeters to measre the distance to stars, nor would we use light years to give directions to the store. In these contexts the measurments don’t make much sense or help us understand. Moral measurements are just the same, arbitrary abstracts used to make sense of differing contexts.
FYI…
here is a good example of both moral relativism and revisionist history in use as an argument to ‘prove’ or ‘convince’.
Oh, look, it’s also hypocrisy. Is this the good kind or the bad kind Darren?
http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/questionsaboutgod5/
“Here are all of the definitions of hypocrisy”…”Yes, hypocrisy is always morally wrong.”…
Here’s one you missed from Merriam-Webster (where are your definitions from?):
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I think this paints the parents’ actions as hypocrisy, but I also think it is a good move on the parents part. Hypocrisy is not always “wrong”.
Hi Ozrik,
Thanks again for your replies!
I wasn’t trying to be tricky with the definitions of hypocrisy. The definitions I got were from dictionary.reference.com. The one you quoted is very similar to 1) that I quoted above. I still don’t think it applies to the child-parent situation. This is an example of lying; not hypocrisy. In this case, I wouldn’t say that this lying is wrong. But again, it’s not hypocrisy. It would be wrong for the parents to say “You should always tell the truth even if it will hurt someone’s feelings” and then proceed to do the opposite with their own child.
With regards to the small village situation, again, let me state clearly: Even if we do not know what is moral in a particular situation that does not prove that there is no correct moral action in that situation. If I say “I don’t know” that proves nothing. This is an ambiguous situation; you say the crying baby will “surely” lead to them being found. But there’s no way to know that. So this could be an example of a person not being able to know what is moral in a particular situation because they don’t have enough information; they don’t know the future.
Instead of all of this, why not focus on a clear, simple moral situation? There’s no need to invent a convoluted scenario. I’ve already given one that’s much simpler: “Is killing babies for fun always morally wrong?” Do you refuse to agree that it’s objectively and absolutely true that it’s wrong to kill babies for fun? If so, why?
“And no, there are no universal moral truths. Can you think of a single one that acctually applies to everyone at all times?”
Ozrik, it’s hard to come up with a non-offensive example, but sometimes the most blatant ones are suitable to make a point. For example, do you really believe that there are contexts where raping children could be morally right? (I don’t believe that you do believe that, nor suggesting that you do, but it seems to be implied given your worldview.) This is a serious question and not just intended to be emotionally evocative. If there are no universal moral truths it seems impossible to say such an act is always wrong. But that seems to be false, doesn’t it?
You say we use “Our own subjective perception of the context.” So, if this were true, there seem to be some problems that would result. For example, it would seem impossible for me to say another person made a wrong moral judgment. Because they could just say, “My subjective perception of the context is that this is right to do.” There also seems to be no way to have real moral improvement. For example, now in North America women have the right to vote. That seems to be a good thing. However, if there is no standard of right or wrong by which we compare our own moral standards against, how can we say that this is a moral improvement? The most we could say is that “My subjective perception of our current context is that it is morally right for women to have the right to vote.” However, someone else could equally validly (under the moral relativist view) say the complete opposite, and how could anyone say he was wrong?
Re “moral relativism and revisionist history”: Please explain why you have made such claims against the article.
I hope that my posts are not seen as being combative or rude, sometimes I’m using rather explicit examples to make a point, and as I said I don’t mean to suggest that you believe these things personally.
I forgot to add:
Yes, hypocrisy (in the sense of telling people they should do or not do X and proceeding to do or not do X yourself) is always wrong.
Darren,
What concerns me about your argument is that your examples seem more manipulative to the reader then relevant to the debate. “Killing babies for fun” is more than just a judgmental condition, it presumes the abstract subjective experience of enjoyment. “fun” has no bearing on whether or not something feels ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. You are emotionally loading the argument to manipulate the reader. Why would you do that? (rhetorical question)
Is delivering bad but important news “fun”? Is it the ‘right’ thing to do?
Is indulging in selfish pleasures “fun”? Is it the ‘wrong’ thing to do?
How about reluctantly killing a baby to save someone else (as in the scenario I described early which you have still failed to answer)? Right, wrong, or is it something else (and what might that be)? Darren, if you were in that situation what do you think you would do?
I understand why you want there to be absolute moral principles, because without it your ideal of a single omnipotent god fails. You have to believe it or else the circular nature of your argument unravels. You try to emotionalize your argument because an emotional reaction generally overwhelms reason (at least on the short term). You don’t want people to think it through for themselves because they might realize that without a dynamic system of moral application our society would collapse. Anything as ridged as absolute moral principles undermines our need to be flexible and beneficial to each other. NO system can succeed if it is a closed and static system.
This is one of the pitfalls of organized group belief systems; inflexibility. I’m not talking about just religion, any organized group can end up embracing this approach. But if we really look at the dogma of any organized system we see that they utilize moral relativism as a foundation for their very philosophy.
I mention the other article because it says in bold, as a means of introducing a key concept…” we should not judge the teachings or the truth of a religion or philosophy by the conduct or behaviour of those who are not following those teachings.”…this IS moral relativism (and using a morally relative system to argue against it is hypocrisy!). In essence he is saying we can only judge an ideology if we are members of it, that we ‘should not’ judge it by those who are not part of it. So an ideology is only relevant to those who are practicing it, and this I agree with. If a Christian wants to believe in a certain set of moral principles that is fine with me provided those principles don’t impinge or infringe on my moral principles, which may not be the same as christianity’s.
Megatheology, those seemingly ‘universal truths’ found in all cultures worldwide, has it’s foundation in relative measure. Moral relativism is basically “live and let live”. This is one of those pervasive cultural norms, much like the golden rule. But you’ll note that even the golden rule is based in a dynamic system as it allows for personal interpretation. I think the golden rule would do better if it read “don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you”, which I feel it implies but perhaps is not as clear as it should be too many. Do Christians want other people trying to convert them or subjecting them to rigid moral structures which may not be culturally relevant to them? No, I don’t think so. Religions should conduct themselves in a like manner.
Let me take one of your paragraphs in parts because it is really well put together and has so much in it (great thinking by the way)…
…“You say we use “Our own subjective perception of the context.” So, if this were true, there seem to be some problems that would result. For example, it would seem impossible for me to say another person made a wrong moral judgment. Because they could just say, “My subjective perception of the context is that this is right to do.”…
—Yes, that’s correct. This is called disagreement, it happens everyday. People interpret things relative to themselves and the society they reside in, but we don’t always come up with the same result (thankfully). Those differing ideas are crucial to the evolution of society, read on…
…” There also seems to be no way to have real moral improvement. For example, now in North America women have the right to vote. That seems to be a good thing. However, if there is no standard of right or wrong by which we compare our own moral standards against, how can we say that this is a moral improvement? The most we could say is that “My subjective perception of our current context is that it is morally right for women to have the right to vote.” However, someone else could equally validly (under the moral relativist view) say the complete opposite, and how could anyone say he was wrong?”..
—Accurate again Darren! It’s a dynamic system, it feeds back into itself as we examine and re-examine our collective actions. Women voting is culturally “right” in North America. Not so in other cultures. Today we culturally embrace not discriminating via a persons race, but in 1947 it would have been just fine to do so. The system adjusts as our collective morality evolves. Good and bad, right and wrong evolve with it, they are relevant only to the current context be it a personal one on a personal level, or a cultural one on a much larger scale.
Let me say Darren that I don’t find you rude. I do find some of what you say combative, but then it wouldn’t be a debate without that, would it? I am enjoying our discussion, and am happy to have it in this mutually respectful manner. Thank you!
Oh I just wanted to touch on this…”philosophers these days think that ethical relativism is naive and that morality is objectively true.”
No they don’t.
http://newhumanist.org.uk/435/to-tell-the-truth
Hi again! I’m glad that you don’t find me to be rude, it’s never my intent to be so. Often times it’s impossible to discuss topics like this in modern society, where the value of political correctness takes precedence over thoughtful discourse. Tolerance, a fine virtue, is over-applied to mean that no one should disagree with one another. But disagreement is implied in the word … you don’t need to tolerate someone you already agree with! :)
“Killing babies for fun” is more than just a judgmental condition, it presumes the abstract subjective experience of enjoyment. “fun” has no bearing on whether or not something feels ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. You are emotionally loading the argument to manipulate the reader. Why would you do that? (rhetorical question)
The reason I added the qualifier “for fun” is not merely to make it emotionally evocative. (Although in some sense all moral decisions are emotional, aren’t they?) The reason is to try to give a clear case example of a universal moral truth that everyone could agree upon. Simply stating “It’s wrong to kill babies” might lead to “Well, what about ______” hypothetical scenarios, whereas I can’t see any such justification given the modifier “for fun”. Is there any context, at any time, by anyone, anywhere, where such an act would be appropriate?
Regarding the complicated scenario you posted re the town being attacked & the baby (which doesn’t seem much less emotionally evocative than my scenario, btw), I still don’t see why we would have to consider a complex scenario when a simpler one (ie, the one above) would suffice. An answer of “I don’t know” would, I think, be perfectly reasonable in this case, and would prove nothing about whether universal/absolute moral truths exist or not. In the scenario you posed, the “I don’t know” answer would be quite reasonable given the reason I outlined above, namely that there are too many unknowns in the scenario, given that we can’t know the future.
But if you really want me to answer, I will give my answer: No, it is not morally right to kill the baby. If that answer seems unsatisfying to you, what you’re really interested in is my justification of that answer: A rationale of why I would say no rather than yes. Of course, if the decision were purely subjective, I wouldn’t need a rationale. “I feel it is right” would be an equally valid rationale to a carefully constructed argument, or no rationale at all. (If you really want me to I could post a rationale on my own blog but I think it would be rather too long to post in the comments here.)
[from the article]“we should not judge the teachings or the truth of a religion or philosophy by the conduct or behaviour of those who are not following those teachings.”[/end of from the article] … this IS moral relativism (and using a morally relative system to argue against it is hypocrisy!). In essence he is saying we can only judge an ideology if we are members of it, that we ‘should not’ judge it by those who are not part of it.
IMHO, this is not what the author was saying at all. He was saying that an ideology should be judged based on its teachings, not the misguided, misapplied, faulty application of those teachings by its followers. He was not saying that those who are not a part of it should not judge it.
For example, Christians have done some pretty bad things. They can be and should be judged for that by both Christians and non-Christians. (Of course, under a moral relativist view, how could anyone else say they did anything wrong?) However, insofar as those actions differ from the teachings of the faith, the faith should not be judged based on those deeds. Essentially, the faith cannot be judged to be false based merely on the inappropriate actions of its followers.
“If a Christian wants to believe in a certain set of moral principles that is fine with me provided those principles don’t impinge or infringe on my moral principles, which may not be the same as christianity’s.”
So if I am understanding you correctly: People should be free to believe what they want, as long as their beliefs do not contradict yours regarding impinging or infringing moral principles? (That may sound offensive at first read and I do apologize if that’s how it sounds but I do think it’s implied from your previous post.) The reason I’m bringing this up is because it seems like the minimalist ethic (“as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody …”) is being used here as an absolute moral principle … that is, if someone tries to force their beliefs on others (which I do not endorse, for the record) that is seen as being always and absolutely morally wrong. But how could that be in a morally relativistic worldview? What if someone says, “It’s my subjective perception that it’s right to impose my beliefs on others.” ?
“Good and bad, right and wrong evolve with it, they are relevant only to the current context be it a personal one on a personal level, or a cultural one on a much larger scale.”
I was wondering then, would you say that our moral decisions be based on our society (culture) or our own personal ideas about what seems right to me? (Of course they should be based on the context of the situation, but I’m asking whether the process of analysis of the context would be based on culture or personal opinion.)
At times it seems like you’re suggesting what is moral is cultural (“collective actions”) while at other times it seems like it’s a personal choice. If we are bound to culture, what gives “culture” the authority to impose morality on us (in a moral relativistic worldview)? Isn’t this just might-makes-right, since whoever has the most power would be able to make their views the law?
Hope you’re having a good week! I haven’t had a chance to read through Dennett’s article yet. I have read Dawkin’s book, but haven’t waded through Dennett’s yet. I know that Dawkins and Hitchens (bleh) believe in absolute moral truths, I wonder if Dennett does also? (I admit I also believed in absolute moral truths when I was an atheist too!)
Wait a moment…if you DON’T believe in ‘absolute moral truths’ the why are you defending them? To me ‘absolute moral truth’ and ‘absolute moral principles’ are one and the same.
There is much for me to reply to above. I just wanted to toss that out there while I chew on your ideas.
Apologies for how this jumps around…
The difference between my “complicated scenario” and your simple “for fun” concept is, well, complexity. You are asking me to judge an action that is further described as being “for fun”, but without giving me a context. I can’t really judge the idea if I don’t have some situational idea of the circumstance.
My “complicated scenario” is so in order to give the reader some insight into the context, in order to make an informed decision about how best to proceed given current conditions. My scenario has variables just like the real world, yours does not. Your suggestion lacks context, it’s far too simple. It’s also counter to what people consider “normal” behavior in ordinary circumstances, so it begs for more detail. My first impulse upon hearing your suggestion is to ask why someone would kill babies for fun. I need more information just to understand what you are suggesting, because without a context it doesn’t make sense. So, to answer your question I’ll say; I need more information.
You would let the baby cry. Ok, good answer, now we’re getting somewhere.
I had a lot of trouble with this one myself. If it meant many lives would be saved I would smother the child.
Which of us is “right”? I can’t say for anyone but myself. I would do what is ‘right’ for me and think you ‘wrong’. You would do the same for yourself. The only difference in this scenario is that I would still be alive with the others to reflect on it. You and everyone else would be dead.
Everything (and I do mean everything) is really driven by balance. In the above scenarios we are blinded by our emotional response and become unaware of our place in the bigger context of things. Morality, like waves on the surface of the ocean, is the average of the positions of extreme. The cultural moral norm (the ocean) is the average of our individual moral perceptions (the waves). As such, I might fall in the trough of a wave, while you might be near the crest, but ultimately it only matters if we are considered as part of the whole ocean. The surface seems rough and difficult to navigate when all we see is our local situation, but if we consider the whole of the body of water, it appears much smoother. This is the contextual variable at work; the dynamic property of a complex system. Up close these morality issues appear quite horrific, but on the whole, and at the cultural level, how often do we encounter them?
…“Christians have done some pretty bad things. They can be and should be judged for that by both Christians and non-Christians. (Of course, under a moral relativist view, how could anyone else say they did anything wrong?)”…
—Easily! Morality is relative to the individual. Darren, I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t make judgments. I’m saying there are no “absolute moral principles”. We certainly do make judgments, and if we didn’t we’d be in big trouble, but those moral contexts are dynamic from culture to culture. This is why asserting any ‘absolute truth’ is so brazenly absurd.
We can’t agree on what to eat for breakfast or what to watch on television, and in response we have choices. You chose oatmeal and I eat coffee and toast. You watch Dancing with the Stars and I watch House. Why? Because we can’t all agree to do the same exact single thing. Morality is no different; we each make our choice of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. You let the baby cry and a bunch of people die, I kill the baby to save the lives of many. Which one of us is absolutely ‘right’?
You and I also disagree about the meaning of “we should not judge the teachings or the truth of a religion or philosophy by the conduct or behavior of those who are not following those teachings.” This too is ok for us to disagree on. I think the meaning is quite plain, but I also think it is quite deceptive, which is why I engage it as I am. I don’t like it when deception is used to lure people.
I still can’t make sense of the “killing babies for fun” thing though.
…“So if I am understanding you correctly: People should be free to believe what they want, as long as their beliefs do not contradict yours regarding impinging or infringing moral principles? (That may sound offensive at first read and I do apologize if that’s how it sounds but I do think it’s implied from your previous post.)”…
—You are a little off. People should believe and practice what they think is ‘right’ until it impinges or infringes on other peoples freedom to do the same. I might not have been very clear earlier. The issue isn’t ‘contradiction’, but rather the infringement of freedom.
…“At times it seems like you’re suggesting what is moral is cultural (”collective actions”) while at other times it seems like it’s a personal choice. If we are bound to culture, what gives “culture” the authority to impose morality on us (in a moral relativistic worldview)? Isn’t this just might-makes-right, since whoever has the most power would be able to make their views the law?”…
—Excellent observation. Morality, like so many things, operates as a byproduct of both the individual and the culture. It is part of what is called a “feedback loop”. As children we learn from our culture, and as we grow we contribute to that culture, which in turn takes our input and continues to evolve the cultural norm. Alone we are static (unchanging, rigid), but in groups we become dynamic. A dynamic system will organize itself into order (this video should blow your mind… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKYNiorXCM4 Note how the metronomes start out in a static environment – on the table- but when put in a dynamic environment –on the cans- the ability to interact allows the group to organize), people are no different. Culture is given ‘authority’ to impose morality by its members, we ourselves are the leaders of our own collective morality, which is why moral principles are dynamic and ever evolving. There are no ‘absolute moral principles’.
Good stuff Darren! Again, I’m thrilled, really deeply thrilled for this exchange.
Hi again Ozrik!
“The difference between my “complicated scenario” and your simple “for fun” concept is, well, complexity. … I can’t really judge the idea if I don’t have some situational idea of the circumstance.”
So then, my question becomes, “Is there any possible context where killing babies just for the personal enjoyment a person feels while doing it is morally right?” (I know it’s a somewhat artificial example, but that’s not that point … and how far off is it really, given things like the guy found recently with 11+ bodies in his house? I’d say that is absolutely morally wrong btw, but no surprise there :D)
“Which of us is “right”? I can’t say for anyone but myself. I would do what is ‘right’ for me and think you ‘wrong’. You would do the same for yourself. The only difference in this scenario is that I would still be alive with the others to reflect on it. You and everyone else would be dead. [later] You let the baby cry and a bunch of people die, I kill the baby to save the lives of many. Which one of us is absolutely ‘right’?”
Hmm, although you’re saying that neither of us is really “right”, you seem to be implying that I am wrong (“I would still be alive” & “You let the baby cry and a bunch of people die”); not just wrong in a subjective opinion sense, but wrong in a factual sense. But that may be just me reading what you’ve written in an “absolute” way.
What came to mind just now is this: The only reason I’m interested in debating moral issues is because I believe there really is a right answer. Sometimes the answer will be simple, other times it will be difficult, and other times it may be impossible to know which is the right choice (either due to complexity or, like in your example, due to the fact that we cannot know the future). If morality really is, as you say, no different than the choice between eating oatmeal or cereal for breakfast, why bother even talking about it? No one has any interest in debating my favorite type of ice cream (at least, not seriously!) but moral choices seem to be in a different category from these sort of choices, don’t they? On an intuitive level, I mean. (Not that intuition is always right, but, it often can point us in the right direction.)
[ Juuuuust for the record, I'll try to briefly explain why I would have let the baby cry in your scenario, even though I said I didn't want to get into it here in the comments ;) The main reason is that we cannot know the future: It MAY be the case that if the baby cries, they will be found. And if so, it MAY be the case that they will be killed. But perhaps it's possible to muffle the baby's cries without killing it. (So then, the choice to kill or let the baby cry loudly is actually a false dichotomy.) But even if the baby cries loudly, it's at least possible that they won't be discovered. And even if they are discovered, perhaps they won't be killed. (For example, perhaps the particular soldier who finds them will have compassion on them and let them live.) Furthermore, the likelihood of the entire group willingly going along with killing a baby seems slim; therefore, the commotion caused by attempting to kill it may cause even more noise than not attempting to do so! So then, if the baby is killed, a death will certainly result, but if the baby is not killed, death will only potentially result. Therefore the proper choice would be to not kill the baby. If someone were to give a better reasoning for the opposite choice, I would change my mind, because since I believe there is such a thing as real right and wrong, I want my thoughts to adhere to what is right as much as possible. ]
“People should believe and practice what they think is ‘right’ until it impinges or infringes on other peoples freedom to do the same.”
So it sounds to me like “impinging or infringing on other peoples freedom is wrong” is an absolute moral principle then? If it was not, I could just ignore it, and say, “I think infringement of freedom is fine.” It seems like certain moral principles are assumed as being absolute, even in a moral relativist system; otherwise, the system couldn’t function properly. If I may paraphrase, it would be like saying “There are no moral absolutes, and so you should always respect other peoples’ freedom.” But if there are no moral absolutes, why “should” I? Having no moral absolutes seems to be a good justification for not having to respect others’ freedom. Tolerance, for example, is, I think, a fine virtue. But in a moral relativist system, there would be no imperative to be tolerant of other views. If someone had enough power, they could effectively silence their critics, and there would be nothing “wrong” with that.
Sorry for the length of my reply; today being a holiday, I have plenty of free time to sit around pontificating. ;) Hope you’re having a good week and not feeling sick … I feel as though I may be coming down with a cold (again) so if I don’t reply for awhile it may be due to that!
it’s immoral to argue about whats moral because
arguing is immoral!! And I’ll just stop there so as not to be arguing…
“Is there any possible context where killing babies just for the personal enjoyment a person feels while doing it is morally right?”
Men who believe themselves to be good, who do not search their own souls, most often commit the worst atrocities. A man who sees himself as evil will restrain himself. It is only when we do evil in the belief that we do good that we pursue it wholeheartedly.
Should someone find a reason to kill babies that, in his or her mind, makes it good. Then from that persons perspective the killing of babies is good. To us, however, it is not.
Morality is relative to each person and his or her perceptions.
What you think is right is wrong. What you think is wrong is wrong. Only whatever you do not think, is right.
I think you both have valid points. Sturt, I may be wrong, but I think that you may be referring to borderline cases of mental illness, in which cases the sense of judgement is impaired. This does not justify their actions, it still makes them ‘wrong’ im my opinion. That is why God invented medications (excuse the sarcasm :) )
There is no right and wrong and its very annoying when people tell me what’s right and what’s wrong and they somehow got their ideas from the bible or something? Why can’t you people let others live their life as they want it. Just because you think is right doesn’t mean its right for others, people have their own brain to think and don’t need your input!
bee, are you saying it’s wrong when people try to tell you what’s right and wrong? If so, why are you doing that? What I mean is, you’re basically saying “You’re wrong for telling anyone else that they’re wrong!” which is of course self-refuting.
Of course everyone should use their brains; they should use them to decide what is actually right and wrong. Having the input of others is not always necessary but can be helpful to reveal errors in our own thinking.
Darren, I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it was annoying. And experience tells me that listening to myself instead of others made the outcome better for myself, so that’s why I’m sticking to that.
Hi everyone…….
I agree with bee.I think a person should listen his\her heart and brain to decide what is right or wrong as it depends on the situation also.Every body’s think tank is different and you cant let him\her go your way but our decisions should not hurt others that is what matters I think.At the same time suggestions should be always welcome as nobody is perfect in this world and everybody learns from experience only……
Okay, seriously… People, you need to speak english.