Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, right and wrong existed before humanity. We don't decide it. We only decide what we think it is. We've discovered pieces of it.
I don't see it as being dependent on culture, laws, traditions, my personal feelings, or even my species.
What do you think about that? I frequently hear statements by atheists that make me think they disagree. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I disagree.
It is right for a cat to kill, because how else will he eat? On the other hand, how right does the mouse think it is? Meanwhile, iin a different scenario, the mouse tries his darndest to escape. Brilliantly he finds a nearly invisible crack in a tree trunk and dives in. That was right and justified of the mouse, isn't it? But meanwhile the mouse's actions have caused hunger, possibly starvation in the cat. In essence it may have actually killed the cat. From the cat's perspective was this right or wrong?
Right and wrong change by circumstance and by judger/perceiver/personal perspective. That means they *can not* be universal, much less pre-date animal existence; certainly not specifically human existence.
Is this a spinoff of the going to hell thread below?
It is right for a cat to kill, because how else will he eat? On the other hand, how right does the mouse think it is? Meanwhile, iin a different scenario, the mouse tries his darndest to escape. Brilliantly he finds a nearly invisible crack in a tree trunk and dives in. That was right and justified of the mouse, isn't it? But meanwhile the mouse's actions have caused hunger, possibly starvation in the cat. In essence it may have actually killed the cat. From the cat's perspective was this right or wrong?
Right and wrong change by circumstance and by judger/perceiver/personal perspective. That means they *can not* be universal, much less pre-date animal existence; certainly not specifically human existence.
Is this a spinoff of the going to hell thread below?
Good analogy JerZ! I also like using nature to show how subjective morality really is. You need look no further than animals than to see that self-preservation is the most innate fliter for what we find right and wrong.
Right and wrong are relative to the judge, or the observer. In society, we try to make laws to enforce such notions by placing ourselves in any given situation, and from both perspectives. So murder is wrong because I wouldn't want to be murdered. Rape is wrong because I wouldn't want to be raped. Stealing is wrong because I wouldn't want to be stolen from.
I disagree. Morality came into existence the first time humans had to coexist or cooperate.
It exists at a lower amplitude for some of the other higher social species as well.
How can there be wrong when there is no one to BE wronged? And who or what would have defined it?
You're right.
Every animal is born with a "rule of behavior". It's why most of the time, two animals of the same species don't fight to the death, regardless of the weapons that they carry with them. But most animals don't have much choice about following these rules, while humans do. It's that choice that makes "rules of behavior" into a moral code.
All human societies have rules about lots of things. Plenty of these rules make no real difference, while being interesting results of their social history.
Others, though, are inherent to our species. These rules often aren't the same between each culture, but all functional societies have them. This includes the instances when killing is OK, and when it's not; what is a fair fight and what isn't; who can marry whom; who is responsible for raising which kids; what can be owned by an individual, who owns what, and what happens when that ownership is violated; and which individuals have social power over other individuals. All the things you'd expect from a hierarchical social animal which lives in cooperative groups, shares food as a medium of exchange, and is fertile throughout the year.
In order to coexist and cooperate we need to have some form of ethical code. This is for the progression and advancement of all civilizations. We are social creatures by nature, and as an evolved species, we understand how a functioning, growing society works, and how it doesn't.
In terms of "right" and wrong," especially in the context of moral absolutes and religious tenets, it is entirely based on era and culture. The Silver Rule, as a principle, is rooted in cooperation and compassion.
Quote:
To me, right and wrong existed before humanity.
You mean like prehistoric times? What would this have looked like? What would have been considered "right" and "wrong" during, say, prehistoric era? What standard of morality do we use to judge what is right and wrong?
In that morality is an entirely human concept and would evaporate if there were no human minds around, clearly it is a human invention, not a human discovery of a pre-existing phenomena. You might argue that Tribe Booga and Tribe Hoo-Hah discovered that things went more smoothly when they cooperated rather than competed for food resources, but it was the humans who thought up the notion of cooperating. And that is the morality, the cooperation, not the results of the cooperation.
In that morality is an entirely human concept and would evaporate if there were no human minds around, clearly it is a human invention, not a human discovery of a pre-existing phenomena. You might argue that Tribe Booga and Tribe Hoo-Hah discovered that things went more smoothly when they cooperated rather than competed for food resources, but it was the humans who thought up the notion of cooperating. And that is the morality, the cooperation, not the results of the cooperation.
To me, right and wrong existed before humanity. We don't decide it. We only decide what we think it is. We've discovered pieces of it.
I don't see it as being dependent on culture, laws, traditions, my personal feelings, or even my species.
What do you think about that? I frequently hear statements by atheists that make me think they disagree. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
'Right' and 'wrong' do not exist in isolation. If the planet was only populated by plants and trees, would right and wrong exist? No, it requires interaction between two sentient beings.
Human morality isfor the most part * dependent on culture, laws, traditions and all the other things you mentioned.
For example only 50 or 60 years ago in western culture (and still in some peoples eyes) homosexuality was seen very much as morally wrong. Whereas if you lived in Ancient Greece, everybody was having sex with everybody, family members included.
Also I think you need to define what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong'.
If you can break it down into something more basic ie kindness, sharing / meanness, selfishness etc, then I do believe humans have evolved an innate sense of these characteristics. However, I think this innate sense of right and wrong varies enormously from person to person.
* I don't think morality is 100% dependent on the culture and environment you are brought up in. Some people are less empathetic than others, clearly. We are a planet of individuals, with our brains wired in an infinite number of ways. Empathy might be something that requires more nurture than nature in some people.
Anybody that has spent any time with animals too will know that a lot of animals also possess some innate empathetic characteristics, especially within their own species. Any dog owner will appreciate this. Animals caring for their young, being protective of other animals, helping other animals, rescuing other animals.
An example of one of a number of studies in this subject:
Last edited by Cruithne; 05-27-2016 at 11:11 AM..
Reason: unfortunate typo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
