Does Right and Wrong Truly Exist? Does Morality Truly Exist Naturally?
Morality tells us right from wrong. Morality tells us that we cannot rape and murder.
Im not an advocate of rape and murder. However, this may still shock you....
Why can't i truly rape and murder?
Why can't i go outside and hurt someone physically?
Im asking these questions because i don't think we naturally have right and wrong. Not because i want to rape and murder. Keep that mind please. The rights and wrongs we have today is formed by society itself. Im talking about if we naturally have rights and wrong. And what i mean by natural is that do we have rights and wrong formed by our existence and not with just our beliefs.
Why is rape truly wrong? It is not wrong because i don't want to be rape. It is not wrong because some rich man says it is wrong. And i can't say it is wrong when the majority says so because the majority MAY be wrong.
This is similiar to an empty house. An empty house doesn't have rules unless people step in it. You can think of this world as an empty house. Similiar to the house, nobody gave humans a book on what to decide what is right and wrong.
You can say that morality is programmed in our heads. But can you prove this form of morality. This form of morality in my opinion is NATURAL MORALITY. I believe that the morality we have today is manipulated by society. Society says we can't kill and rape.
Is it because of what society said gave me feeling hate towards people who kill and rape? Or is it our naturally morality.
i want someone with truly experience knowledge on this topic debate. Forget it, lol, all is welcome. I don't want some ridicolous comments such as "this guy is a sicko" because that would give me tension. It is hard for me to express my mind when people are going to judge. And judge me, you have the right to. (This is my view on what is right and wrong. But do we have it naturally? lol i don't want you guys to think that im contradicting myself with that statement. If you are confused on what im saying, please forget it). This is a pretty messed up debate. And if you guys knew me from the past, my debate do imply that im mentally sick in the head. I don't think i am most of the time. However there are times when i do think like im mentally sick with how everything went in the past with me on this site.
If God came down and told me what is right and wrong, then i would be satisfied because is the father of life and all. And with respect to the thiests who will put "Because God says rape is wrong," i don't want to read it. I find it pointless on some levels due to the lack of evidence of God.
(im 21 years old. I go to college and i want become a rapper. And i want to ace the knowledge of chemistry and computer programming. Even IFFFFFF i wanted to rape and murder, i wouldn't do so because i know the consequences. I don't want to throw my life away. :D)
Yes
Side Score: 19
|
 |
No
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
Right and wrong exist the same way any human concept exist, conceptually. Your examples of rape and murder are pretty clear cut. They would be in the wrong category. Reasoning behind what we label right or wrong in essence is pretty simple as well. Empathy is an ability to understand what another feels. We have natural empathy. We've determined things to be right or wrong based on this for the most part, certainly in these two examples. Understanding why they are wrong is not difficult, what is difficult is attempting to justify them. This is where philosophical gobbledygook comes in, when you try to logically justify counter to our shared nature and understanding. Side: Yes
1
point
Im both. Understanding why rape and murder is wrong is some what difficult and annoying. I find it difficult because maybe im thinking to hard. Don't call me a rapist or a murderer. lol, i sense that those two are wrong because i find rape and murder horrible things. But is that morality or society? Empathy huh? It is the sense of understanding how another one feels. So if i sense you are scared and in shock....i don't get how does that make humans have natural rights and wrong. What would make me agree that we do have natural rights and wrong if everybody agrees on it. But if that one person says otherwise, then the possibility of that person being right exists. And the possibility of the rest being wrong exists. Can you please explain this "empathy" in a much greater detail IF you can? God bless. Where do you get your source of information? You seem intelligent and you probably know what you are talking about. Because honestly, im disagreeing with you almost completely but i have this sense that im wrong. Side: Yes
1
point
I think an important question here is were you raised with the belief that our morality is given to us by God? Because if so, then i can see how it could be hard to shake that belief when looking for another cause of morality. But thats the whole point. There is no cause. Morality changes as we change, and as we better understand how our actions affect others Side: Yes
"empathy - The ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Ask yourself, "Do I want to be murdered." Should you answer, "No, I'd rather not be murdered," then you will understand why murdering another would be wrong. Perhaps you're wondering why it would be natural for most to feel this way? If that is the heart of the question, it's just a part of human evolution. Those who have more empathy over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution had a higher likelihood to survive, being that in the animal kingdom we are relatively slow and week, but smart enough that when we work together we thrive. Therefore those who had this were more likely to survive and produce offspring who were also more likely to have empathy, and so on. There are sociopaths who do not have empathy, but this is considered a genetic flaw. Humans are not the only ones with this though, most pack animals have some primitive form of empathy, which would be a simple form of "right and wrong" though obviously they do not think it through to the extent humans do. There are tests to determine if this is something missing in you. Usually those with trouble understanding it are those who were simply born without it. It's not common, but not unheard of. It also does not necessarily mean one is a serial killer or something, so don't worry. Though sociopath (someone who lacks empathy) is most commonly associated with this type of anti-social, often highly criminal behaviour, it is estimated the vast majority who experience this lack actually learn to function fine, and one would never know the difference should they not look into it. Try this, it's not 100% scientifically accurate but sociopaths tend to be able to solve it instantly, while for most they simply cannot solve it or must spend a lot of time thinking about it because empathy kind of "gets in the way" of seeing the solution: A mother and two of her daughters are at the third daughters funeral. The oldest daughter sees a man she does not know at the funeral and falls in love with him instantly. He has a wedding ring. There are many people at the funeral, both friends and family. The mother is widowed, the youngest daughter is married but not to the man the oldest daughter is in love with. The oldest daughter has no way of contacting this man she's fallen in love with. A week later there is another funeral. Someone at the first funeral was murdered. Who's dead? Who's the murderer? And why? Often a sociopath will know the exact answer almost immediately, as if I asked "what's 1+1" but not always. Usually non-sociopaths, anyone who feels empathy, will struggle with the riddle for quite some time before figuring it out, if they can figure it out at all. The key is motive, there is obvious motive to the murder and everything you need is in place. You don't have to guess or fill in blanks to come to the solution. And that is all you get... Side: Yes
1
point
Yes. Objective morality is not contingent upon the supernatural, and I would challenge anyone that says otherwise. I would say that the reason humans instinctively know what is "right and wrong" is due to, like many things, evolution. That which is advantageous to human well being is good. That which is disadvantageous is bad. Whilst this is not a strictly moral usage of the terms, it does show that we do not rely upon the supernatural for morality. Moreover, the idea of divine command seems immoral in many religions. Take Christianity, which makes the claim that objective morality could only come from Yahweh, a maximally great being worthy of worship. In essence, whatever Yahweh commands is morally good. So when, for example, Yahweh commands "thou shalt not murder", that is morally good. Fair enough. But when Yahweh orders Moses to command the massacre of 3000 Israelites ON THE SAME DAY HE GIVES MOSES THE COMMANDMENTS, that is also morally good. Surely this seriously harms the idea of divine command being our only source of objective morality? For me, the question of an objective morality source in the natural world is a perplexing one. I'm not entirely sure whether there is one. But, if I was in a gambling mood, I would pledge my allegiance to the idea of evolution being our objective source of morality. Survival and the continuation of a species is wired into all life forms, humanity included. And so, what we know as right and wrong is determined by evolution. I'm assuming you're talking about objective morality, as subjective morality is obviously apparent. Side: Yes
You mean the 3000 Israelites who rebelled against YHWH? The ones who voluntarily agreed to the covenant and all the punishments for breaking it? The same ones who, since this was a theocracy, committed treason? I don't think it harms divine command theory at all. Statements like that come from a superficial reading completely devoid of context. Side: No
1
point
You mean the 3000 Israelites who rebelled against YHWH? The ones who voluntarily agreed to the covenant and all the punishments for breaking it? The same ones who, since this was a theocracy, committed treason? The very ones. Quite frankly, the details don't matter. God says to Moses that murder is immoral. Then he orders Moses to oversee a slaughter of 3000 people. It wouldn't matter if they were all the most disgusting, vile humans in history, which they weren't. God broke his moral law. I don't think it harms divine command theory at all. Statements like that come from a superficial reading completely devoid of context. Oh dear. You're claiming context? Fair enough. Let me ask you this: do you believe that every incident of God slaughtering men, women and children is void of context? It's astonishing how quickly theists will flip sides. When He does something good, God is good. When he does something bad, he's mysterious. Side: Yes
I can say that I am truly knowledgeable about this topic. I have a BA in philosophy in which I had an emphasized study of morality, its basis, and the justification for beliefs about it. I took advanced courses in it where we explored many of the more esoteric concepts like the concept of supererogation in refining the understanding of what and how morality is for us as humans. In response to how you stated the question: 1. You can truly rape someone, morality and ethics has to do with the permissibility of this act by others. in my understanding, morality informs ethics insofar as it is the personal intuition about the nature of the act which motivates the socio-political expression to be codified as legal or moral code. 2. You can go outside and hurt someone physically, but again, the permissibility or impermissibility of this act by others is what ethics is about. Ethics can be summed up as the prescriptive - ought or ought not - with regards to the normative statuses of actions. In moral philosophy, the Modern Project is "to state, motivate, and defend the normative statuses of actions." To suggest that morality doesn’t exist naturally suggests that it either doesn't exist, its existence is not natural or its existence is supernatural, but the fact that it does exist insofar as its existence is based on normative perceptions of actions (the fact that one or more persons perceives actions to be good or bad, which is sufficient for morality to be claimed as an existing phenomenon) and there is no good reason to think it is non-natural or supernatural because naturalistic accounts are the only empirically coherent and reasonable conceptions of morality. Morality exists because i think positively or negatively about certain types of actions, my doing so has to do with my awareness of the order around me, and myself as an ordered being, and the desire for that order to continue on (such that i benefit from it since i am sustained by the established order). Ethics is the political assertion of my moral sense, the social expression of my normative prescriptions for other people to adhere to in the world (we [rational agents] generally agree on many of these prescriptions). This is perfectly natural insofar as my normative perceptions and prescriptions are based on the evolved ethical faculty in my mind (a common human faculty), and natural insofar as there is no synthetic or supernatural element to their existence. It is "objectively" (or what i would call - universally justifiable to describe as...) wrong to rape or to murder because there is a universal tendency for all things to resist actions that conflict with the preservation of their own sovereignty, avoidance of pain, and the perpetuation of their life. However, if one were to say that there is some objective outside source of morality I would say that they are delusional. Morality, though natural and justified, is a subjectively based thing. Subjectivity is more central to our existence than most people would like to admit. The basis of much of our society is convention. Although much of our society is based on convention, convention alone is not the basis of morality, it is the coherence with the existential predisposition toward the preservation of sovereignty that makes something normatively permissible or impermissible. Insofar as it is a tendency and predisposition however, it does not mean that in certain circumstances (collectively called ethical dilemmas) it is not completely impermissible to act in ways that are typically impermissible since the preservation of life both individually and maximally in the world - is what underlies our morality and ethical inclinations. Side: Yes
1
point
|
Morality tells us right from wrong. Morality is the human idea of what tells us what is right and what is wrong. Morality tells us that we cannot rape and murder. Morality tells some of us that we cannot rape and murder. Im not an advocate of rape and murder. These types of disclaimers are always obnoxious. However, this may still shock you.... So is haughtiness. Why can't i truly rape and murder? Au contraire, you can rape and murder. You might not think yourself capable of doing so, but with just the right pressure and circumstance, you'd crack. Most people would. Why can't i go outside and hurt someone physically? Because you fear being hurt physically yourself? Im asking these questions because i don't think we naturally have right and wrong. It is something that we learn. Not because i want to rape and murder. Why not? Why is rape truly wrong? Rape is wrong to me because it goes against the NAP - the non-aggression principle. I don't claim to know why rape is wrong to other people, or that it truly is truly wrong. It is not wrong because i don't want to be rape. And you don't want to be raped. Somewhere, deep inside of your being, you fear that if you rape, then anybody can rape, and you don't want to live in such a world. And i can't say it is wrong when the majority says so because the majority MAY be wrong. Typically, I'll say that if the majority says something, it is a safe bet to assume the opposite. However, there are a few exceptions. This is one of 'em. Murder and rape is wrong, and the majority are right. You can think of this world as an empty house. But people live upon the earth? Ergo you ought to think of the world as a house into which people have already stepped. Similiar to the house, nobody gave humans a book on what to decide what is right and wrong. Didn't they? I should imagine that about two billion people would disagree with you there, but I can't say with absolute certainty either about the figures or the reality. You can say that morality is programmed in our heads. You can say a lot of things. A hell of a lot of things. A preposterously huge number of things. There are what, 600,000 words in the English language? You can say 600,000 one-word "things". How about 2-word things? 600,000^2, if I'm not mistaken. Been a long time since math class. But can you prove this form of morality. I'm personally of the opinion that nothing can be proven. Society says we can't kill and rape. Depends on the society. Is it because of what society said gave me feeling hate towards people who kill and rape? Or is it our naturally morality. In the first scenario you've crashed your plane in the middle of the Arctic; your co-pilot is hurt and probably won't make it, but you've no food and are starting to grow hungry. What do you do? You would probably have reservations about eating him, and perhaps - even if you don't like him too much - you die because you simply will not eat the human body, even if he's already dead. Now, in the next scenario, you are a feral human. Raised without having ever once laid eyes upon one of your own kind, you are accustomed to killing creatures to eat. Now, a human happens to cross paths with you. You're hungry, out hunting for something, and you see this human? What do you do? Society has never spoken so much as a single word to you; you've neither seen nor heard of humanity and you haven't the words to express a concept as alien as ethics. Decide for yourself what would happen, but my personal thought is that you wouldn't think this human was any different than any other animal which you have thus consumed. It is hard for me to express my mind when people are going to judge. Why? Don't worry what other people think. Follow your Bliss. Do what makes you happy, if people judge, then be judged, but it is better than having a life wasted on other people's expectations and never actually living your own life as you want to do so. Side: No
1
point
2
points
It seems you are missing the major point here. The fact you even have to ask why you shouldn't rape and murder is.. worrying. Don't get me wrong - I understand the point you are trying to make but all the arguments you make completely miss the main reason we act morally. The reason you can't rape and murder is because of the consequences of doing so. How it would affect the victim, their friends and family and how it would affect you. Treat people how you would want them to treat you. Not because it's how society wants you to act or because it's how you've been told to act. We get our morals from a rational consideration of the consequences of our actions. Side: No
1
point
And to be more specific in response to the main question. No. I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality. That is what religions will try and have you believe. Morality is conceptual, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter and it doesn't mean everyone has a completely different opinion on it either. Side: Yes
If by "Naturally" you mean without religious influence, then I'ld suggest no. Most morals of society specifically come from religions such as Christianity. Evolution and Natural Selection state that it's all right to steal and murder, as it is merely survival of the fittest. Rape is also your natural hormones taking control of your mental state and this it "isn't your fault". Thus I conclude that without religion we would be animals. Side: No
1
point
Most morals of society specifically come from religions such as Christianity. I must contend this. In what way do you think that any religion gives us our morals? Evolution and Natural Selection state that it's all right to steal and murder They say nothing of the kind. Even if they did give a hypothesis on morality, the opposite would be true. Rape is also your natural hormones taking control of your mental state and this it "isn't your fault". It doesn't change the fact that rape is widely accepted as being morally wrong. By the way, the punishment for rape in the Bible is having to marry your victim. What an awful punishment! Thus I conclude that without religion we would be animals. We are animals. Even so, I would argue that religion makes us more primitive. Without religion, we would perhaps be much more sophisticated and advanced than we are so today. Side: Yes
"By the way, the punishment for rape in the Bible is having to marry your victim. What an awful punishment!" This was only the case if the victim and her father agreed to the marriage. It would be hard for the woman to marry anyone if she was not a virgin because of the customs and laws at the time, and marriage was for family, not love. Under the law there was no possibility of him divorcing her, so she got someone to provide for her for the rest of her life and to take care of her parents when they got too old to work. Plus the man had to pay the family silver as a fine. A free ride for the rest of her life and insurance for the family at the expense of the rapist's entire rest of his life. Seems like a fitting punishment to me. Side: Yes
"I must contend this. In what way do you think that any religion gives us our morals?" Where did the idea of, "not killing people" or "not stealing" occur if it wasn't from religion? "They say nothing of the kind. Even if they did give a hypothesis on morality, the opposite would be true." Survival of the fittest, is that not the saying? "It doesn't change the fact that rape is widely accepted as being morally wrong." Where did the "morally wrong" come from? Rape is merely sex before marraige which is widely accepted among many atheists today. "By the way, the punishment for rape in the Bible is having to marry your victim. What an awful punishment!" Marry, feed, cloth, look after child. At the end of the day it's still a burden, it's better than no punishment. "We are animals. Even so, I would argue that religion makes us more primitive. Without religion, we would perhaps be much more sophisticated and advanced than we are so today." Really? What would mean "advancement" to you? is it the eventual progress to euthanasia? And you miss my meaning when I say "animals", we would kill, steal, and rape because there would be no reason to suggest otherwise. Religion on the other hand, doesn't need science or sophistication to provide basic moral codes. Side: No
[Thanks for clarifying.] Morality, if we ought to follow it, must come from an issuer of value which is the very definition of moral perfection. The only way to do this, as far as I can see, is to posit a God of infinite worth whose nature is the very definition of morality. When I say God, I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular religion (though of course I have my own belief system). I simply mean the God of classic monotheism (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, and personal). Outside of such an issuer of moral values and duties, I don't see why we -should- do anything. Everything is permitted because in the end there is no one to hold us accountable and there is no ultimate justice. Live whatever way makes you happy, since tomorrow you die. And don't worry about others along the way because they are as valueless as you. Side: No
1
point
The operative word is "exists". I would say it exists in nature, but it's not grounded in nature. In other words without nature, morals would still exist since they are defined by a supernatural GPB. As a side note even if moral values were grounded in nature, I don't see 1) why we have any obligation to follow them or 2) even if we did follow them, why any set of moral values (good, evil) should be followed over another. I guess my problem with purely-natural morality is this: We cannot derive an ought from an is. The description of nature, even a description containing moral values, does not in any way allow us to draw from it a prescription of what we should do. Side: Yes
1
point
If there is no God, then there is no final and greatest purpose, if their is no final and greatest purpose, then there is no point to living other than to please ourselves, if there is no point to living other than to please ourselves, then the best thing we can do for each other is to kill ourselves, for it is the most merciful action we can take, to end our worthless existence and spare our children their hopeless fate. But if mercy itself is stupidity, then the only thing we can find hope in, is death, for it is the most logical choice. but if you don't follow logic, than you are either insane, or stupid, in either case, your arguments have NO credibility. Side: No
|
