-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right Or Wrong
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
epronovost
Well-Known Member
i don't think there is any evidence that there is such a thing as a right or wrong concept outside of human philosophy.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Right and wrong is a matter of opinion when it comes to morality, but if one wants to achieve a goal then there would be right ways and wrong ways to achieve it.
When it comes to Christianity, right and wrong in terms of morality is God's opinion. Since he is creator, that opinion is law.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't believe so. Without humans, how does nature, physics, etc decide morality?
Philosophy, theology, and other -ologies are human nature, observation, study.
There could be an 'objective' right and wrong. That's always possible even when not entirely plausible. However, we have no methodology for establishing that there is or isn't such a thing.
That's to say, even though some good folks point to their scriptures or their gods as proof of an objective right and wrong, they never seem able to come up with an adequate methodology for proving their claims. In fact, I suspect many of them do not even see the need for one, but are instead quite happy without a thought in the world about it.
That's to say, even though some good folks point to their scriptures or their gods as proof of an objective right and wrong, they never seem able to come up with an adequate methodology for proving their claims. In fact, I suspect many of them do not even see the need for one, but are instead quite happy without a thought in the world about it.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
I think so. Anything that is overall more harmful and destructive in nature should be regarded as wrong, whereas anything that is overall beneficial and constructive in nature should be regarded as right.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Right or left
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, right and wrong are objective. They exist outside of the subjective thoughts of men. This is the teaching of ethical monotheism.
The methodology is quite basic. The virtues produce and sustain life, the lack of virtues is conducive to decay and death.
The virtues are the joining and mingling of elements, the lack of virtues results in the dispersion of those elements.
The Messengers are the bringers of the required virtues, in the Message given, which is the cause of a productive life in a unity of cause. Neglect of that message brings decay of productive lives and death to the intent of the original message, as disunity overtakes the purity of that Message.
Regards Tony
Hi Tony,
Do you feel you're using the term "methodology" in your post to mean the same sort of thing as I meant by it?
At any rate, how would you define what you mean by "methodology"?
Thank you for the reply Sunstone. Most likely not to your question
The word means to me as I shared it, when I looked up what it may mean in other ways, I see it may not have that meaning for you.I see 'methodology' in a way of developing a scientific approach to understanding the importance enshrined in a Message we are yet to fully grasp.
Regards Tony
No.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
No there is not. That is exactly what right/wrong is: a human concept. Aside from that, where could it exist? In a cat? In a tree? In the sky? On Mars?
Last edited:
I see right is a given apex of possibility and the lack of being right, would be all the degrees of wrong.
So it could be said there is right and lack of right becomes manifest as wrong. Wrong can not exist without there being a right.
Regards Tony
Thank you for the reply Sunstone. Most likely not to your question
I see 'methodology' in a way of developing a scientific approach to understanding the importance enshrined in a Message we are yet to fully grasp.
Regards Tony
Thanks, Tony! Well, I'm not going to declare that you cannot define "methodology" as you see fit. I mean, I'm insufferably arrogant -- just ask my two ex-wives -- but I have yet to reach the dizzying heights of being so insufferably arrogant that I feel privileged to dictate to decent folks such as yourself what you can and cannot mean when you open your mouths to speak! Good gods! I'm not that arrogant yet.
You'll have to wait until next week for me to have grown that arrogant!
At any rate, here's your argument... near as I can make it out (correct me if I am wrong)...
"The virtues produce and sustain life, the lack of virtues is conducive to decay and death."
To be sure, I am not certain whether I agree or disagree with you there, but you might be interested to know that what you seem to have in mind appears to be strikingly similar to the philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist Hilary Putman's argument that values do indeed provide us with some basis for claiming they can be 'objective'.
Basically, Putman argued -- just like you seem to be doing -- that 'virtues' must have at least some objective basis since they tend to have predictable outcomes. That is, honesty tends to produce predictable results over and over again. Likewise, dishonesty tends to produced its own set of predictable results over and over again.
As Putman saw it, values like honesty and dishonesty could not possibly be entirely and wholly without any objective basis in reality if they could consistently produce more or less the same objective results over and over again.
I myself have yet to take the time and make the effort to give Putman's argument a fair hearing and evaluation. I just haven't gotten around to doing that yet. So, I cannot say one way or the other whether I agree or disagree with you and him. I guess I have to leave it at that for now.
I hope all is well with you and yours in these difficult times.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Get off the fence.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Oddly enough, but only to a certain degree, I think the answer is .... Yes.
To an extent. I think that such determinations are on a species by species basis.
take a bacterium as an example. If two bacterium are sitting next to a piece of food then each will try to eat the food. They don’t care if the other one starves. They don’t care if the other one is injured. Well, actually they do, because they may eat the other bacterium if it seems weak enough.
However, in animals with enough brain power and function to have family units, and more to the point collective societal units, then some “morality” or sense of right and wrong is genetically built in.
Usually this takes the form of caring for the young and weak, as well as having a sense of overall “fairness”. When you have an animal that is injured or diseased in someway such that it does not follow these, shall we say “altruistic behaviors” when it exists as part of a societal group or familial group, then its behavior is “wrong”.
I have really only come over to adopting this way of thought in the last decade or so, ever since seeing more and more videos of animals acting altruistically. Putting themselves at risk in order to save another animal, whether it be part of their family or even a total stranger to them. Dolphins saving swimmers lost at sea and pushing them for miles to shore is not just some playful behavior on their part, but rather a conscious choice to do the “right” thing for someone that they never met.
We have probably all seen the video of the dog running across highway traffic to tend to another dog struck by a car and lying in the midline meridian.
There was also this video that I don’t think depicts greed, so much as an intrinsic feeling that things should be fair rather than one-sided.
Sounds similar to Hilary Putman's approach to the question, as laid out in post #17. I just came across Putman for the first time yesterday. Fascinating guy! Can't wait to find out more about his approach to whether or not there's an objective basis for values.