How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

Primaris
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #141

Post by Primaris »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:35 am
I agree with you, too.
[/quote]

OK but you didn't explain WHY god says that rape is wrong.
WHY does god say that rape is wrong?
Is he:
1)Using the harm principle
or
2)Just saying rape is wrong because he says so, which means he could change his mind tomorrow. His morality is subjective.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #142

Post by Compassionist »

OK but you didn't explain WHY god says that rape is wrong.
WHY does god say that rape is wrong?
Is he:
1)Using the harm principle
or
2)Just saying rape is wrong because he says so, which means he could change his mind tomorrow. His morality is subjective.
I am an agnostic. I am not convinced gods exist. Why don't you ask God to show up and answer your questions while on live TV?

Primaris
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #143

Post by Primaris »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:35 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 1:01 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:04 am [Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense.
Really! I'm surprised because the only thing atheism speaks to is a lack of belief in god, and that's it. Not a thing about right or wrong at all.
I'm not making any comment about that definition of 'atheism'. I'm using 'atheism' in its traditional philosophical sense, which is the belief that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then there is no right or wrong in any helpful sense.
After reading through each page to get a better understanding of where the divide lies.......Im not so sure atheism, in the traditional philosophical sense, means "god does not exist". I believe it means "no god" or "without god", which is different as I will explain below. So this may be where the problem lies within the discussion.

For example: A seed falls from a tree, gets exposed to light, heat, water, then it germinates and grows to a mature tree, that produces new seed; therefore new trees. No god is needed for this process. It doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, it just means that we do not have a need for a god. No god needed. I don't think it means "god does not exist", as you claim.

Take thunder. In ancient times, we could not explain thunder naturally, so we explained it supernaturally; i.e. God. (god is just a label or placeholder for "I don't know", and god isn't an explanation of anything). Centuries later we learned the cause of thunder is natural, not supernatural. God is no longer needed to explain the existence of thunder. So when it comes to thunder, Im an atheist, a traditional philosophical atheist. God is not needed for me to explain why thunder exists. Maybe god DOES exist though. Im not counting him out, I just don't need to invoke a god to explain my understanding of the world.

I just don't see philosophers(at least the majority) claim that "god does not exist". (Even IF they did, see below) Certainly, if anyone should recognize this error, it would be them. If I can recognize it with my entry level philosophical course completed, seasoned veterans will be able to. No? Even I would never claim that a god does not exist. Any claims I make about a god are not knowledge claims, they are belief claims.

So even IF I did say "god does not exist", it would be with the understanding(of course only in my head, because how is anyone supposed to read my mind) that what I really mean is, "I do not believe a god exists". I would expect a philosopher to state the same.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #144

Post by boatsnguitars »

Primaris wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 11:25 am
Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:35 am
I agree with you, too.
OK but you didn't explain WHY god says that rape is wrong.
WHY does god say that rape is wrong?
Is he:
1)Using the harm principle
or
2)Just saying rape is wrong because he says so, which means he could change his mind tomorrow. His morality is subjective.
[/quote]

This is the interesting phenomenon when debating |Theists about morality. If we ask why God thinks murder, rape, slavery, etc are bad they usually point out how it harms either the people, or how it harms God (it offends God). They use harm as their measure (because it's sensible to look at morality that way), however, if atheists use harm (that it harms the person or the society), they are accused of having no basis for morality. Theists claim that this is because God can be the enforcer of those laws, which isn't a real function of morality. (If I say you shouldn't wear white after Labor Day as a moral rule, my enforcing it doesn't make it more moral).

So, I think Theists have to understand that Moral Theory has passed them by. They had a chance, like Evolution, to tie in our morality with harm - "and wasn't God clever to do that" - but they rejected this line of reasoning because it aligns too closely with what atheists have been arguing. Now they have to argue that Morality stems from the Subject of God, but it's Objective because God - just so happens - to embody all the right things to make Morality Good and Real.... Plus, he'll make you suffer, or snuff you out, if you don't obey.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #145

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:04 pmDoes this mean you would run rampant and kill people, if it benefited you and there was no God? Or would you instead heed Nature as our designer, and note that social animals are usually not supposed to kill their group members?
What do you mean not supposed to kill?
Purple Knight wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:04 pmI present an alternative to morality that is independent of human opinion, which is that objective morality must take all human opinion into account. If we both think it's wrong to murder one another, then we agree and don't murder one another. And if we have the agreement, and one violates it, not because he was tricked into it and the agreement made him a slave, but genuinely violating a mutually beneficial moral agreement, then he is morally wrong. And maybe I think throwing spiders on people is wrong, and you think the like about throwing mice. If we respect one another, and it still benefits both, we will still agree.

Every murderer is not only someone who benefited greatly from society's prohibition on murder, but someone who never said honestly that he thought the law was wrong and didn't agree to it. While not positive consent which I would prefer, it's darn close. We will find the same with most basic rules.
This alternative is still dependent on human opinion, just more than one human who shares the opinion. One’s opinion will determine whether they agree the rule is beneficial and, therefore, worth their agreement.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #146

Post by The Tanager »

Primaris wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:09 pmAfter reading through each page to get a better understanding of where the divide lies.......Im not so sure atheism, in the traditional philosophical sense, means "god does not exist". I believe it means "no god" or "without god", which is different as I will explain below. So this may be where the problem lies within the discussion….
Traditionally, atheism did mean that one believed that no God existed. People would have varying confidence levels of their claim, of course. Agnosticism means “I don’t know if God exists or not”. Theists believed some God(s) existed.
Primaris wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:52 pmWhat does it matter if morality is subjective or objective?
Here's why I don't think it matters: Why does god say rape is wrong? Is he 1)Using the harm principle or 2)just saying rape is wrong because he says so? Meaning he could change his mind tomorrow, which is subjective. #1 right? Or is there some other reason(a #3 and a #4....) Im not aware of?

My concern is the method in which we use.......or the method in which god uses to determine morality. WHY does god say rape is wrong? WHY do humans say rape is wrong? Some people will say it's wrong because their god says so. No real reason other than "god says so". But atheists have reasons to say rape is wrong. It causes harm. And as a society we have to live with rules and regs.
Why is saying “this is wrong” rather than “we are in power and we don’t like that, so we are going to make you follow our views” important if one thinks morality is subjective? It’s just semantics. Humans will disagree about what actually causes harm, so it’s just a matter of which group has the power in the situation.

If morality is objective, however, there is something, built within us and for our own good, about what actually causes harm and what helps all of us to function together in a better way. Without that, then might is right.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #147

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:03 am1. …As far as I can tell, conscious biological organisms are affected by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. When I examine my own choices, I can see that they were determined by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences….
You shifted from “affected by” to “determined by”. Those are two very different concepts. I agree we are affected by these things, very powerfully so. But if you are claiming all of our choices are determined by, then please share what evidence supports this. Why is this the case as far as you can tell?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:03 am2. I have said in a previous post that "limited free will" is an oxymoron. Either the will is free or it is not free.
And I shared how it’s not and how the wide philosophical community has been fine to use this term. I also said you could give it another name you feel is more appropriate. There are at least three viable options: (1) no limitations to one’s will, (2) some limitations to one’s will, (3) full limitations to one’s will. Why isn’t (2) a logical option?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:03 am3. Harming a living thing is unjust. Helping a living thing is just. I did not say that it is an objective method.
Then why talk of injustice? Is my like for a different flavor of vegan ice cream an “injustice”? If not, then why someone else’s like to cause harm to an animal if they think it benefits them?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:03 am4 and 5. The word subjective means "existing in the mind". Your poems were produced in your mind, therefore, they have only subjective meanings. They do not have any objective meaning. If the Biblical God exists and if he created the universe then the universe is also subjective and all the rules created by the Biblical God are also subjective.
That is not what subjective typically means in these philosophical debates. A thought can exist in our minds about an objective feature of reality and we can make a claim about that. That doesn’t mean the feature of reality is subjective. You seem to be conflating having an opinion about X and whether there are objective facts about X. I can have an opinion that accords with objective reality about X, whether X is a fact about the shape of the earth or a poem I wrote.

Primaris
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #148

Post by Primaris »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 2:59 pm
Primaris wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:09 pmAfter reading through each page to get a better understanding of where the divide lies.......Im not so sure atheism, in the traditional philosophical sense, means "god does not exist". I believe it means "no god" or "without god", which is different as I will explain below. So this may be where the problem lies within the discussion….
Traditionally, atheism did mean that one believed that no God existed. People would have varying confidence levels of their claim, of course. Agnosticism means “I don’t know if God exists or not”. Theists believed some God(s) existed.
Can you provide a source for this "traditional" definition? And when was this "traditional" definition in usage? And does anyone use it today?
Because Im not quite sure that's what it means. As I showed in my last post, saying things like "no god" doesn't necessarily mean that no gods exist. And if you claimed that thunder was created by angry gods and a few years later we prove that thunder is created naturally, I would say, "See, no god exists........as the cause of thunder".

I rest my case and I think the case is closed.

Primaris wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:52 pmWhat does it matter if morality is subjective or objective?
Here's why I don't think it matters: Why does god say rape is wrong? Is he 1)Using the harm principle or 2)just saying rape is wrong because he says so? Meaning he could change his mind tomorrow, which is subjective. #1 right? Or is there some other reason(a #3 and a #4....) Im not aware of?

My concern is the method in which we use.......or the method in which god uses to determine morality. WHY does god say rape is wrong? WHY do humans say rape is wrong? Some people will say it's wrong because their god says so. No real reason other than "god says so". But atheists have reasons to say rape is wrong. It causes harm. And as a society we have to live with rules and regs.
Why is saying “this is wrong” rather than “we are in power and we don’t like that, so we are going to make you follow our views” important if one thinks morality is subjective? It’s just semantics. Humans will disagree about what actually causes harm, so it’s just a matter of which group has the power in the situation.
Strange. You ran from telling me why god says rape is wrong. Does he not have a reason? #1 or #2.......or is there some other reason Im not thinking of?

Well, your god is either using "harm" or he's just saying rape is wrong because he says so, which is subjective. He could change his mind tomorrow, since he doesn't have a reason. Has god ever stated his reason? And how did he state his reason? Bible? Dream? Hymn? Through a prophet or messenger? What is god''s reason for saying/making rape wrong?

If morality is objective, however, there is something, built within us and for our own good, about what actually causes harm and what helps all of us to function together in a better way. Without that, then might is right.
[/quote]

Well, you still avoided the questions for some strange reason. It appears that god doesn't have a reason, but I will give you another chance. I haven't come anyone that can provide one yet. Strange, I know.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #149

Post by Miles »

Primaris wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:28 pm
The Tanager wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 2:59 pm
Primaris wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:09 pmAfter reading through each page to get a better understanding of where the divide lies.......Im not so sure atheism, in the traditional philosophical sense, means "god does not exist". I believe it means "no god" or "without god", which is different as I will explain below. So this may be where the problem lies within the discussion….
Traditionally, atheism did mean that one believed that no God existed. People would have varying confidence levels of their claim, of course. Agnosticism means “I don’t know if God exists or not”. Theists believed some God(s) existed.
Can you provide a source for this "traditional" definition? And when was this "traditional" definition in usage? And does anyone use it today?
Because Im not quite sure that's what it means. As I showed in my last post, saying things like "no god" doesn't necessarily mean that no gods exist. And if you claimed that thunder was created by angry gods and a few years later we prove that thunder is created naturally, I would say, "See, no god exists........as the cause of thunder".

I rest my case and I think the case is closed.
"atheism (n.)

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist."
source

.

Primaris
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #150

Post by Primaris »

Miles wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:21 pm
Primaris wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:28 pm
The Tanager wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 2:59 pm
Primaris wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:09 pmAfter reading through each page to get a better understanding of where the divide lies.......Im not so sure atheism, in the traditional philosophical sense, means "god does not exist". I believe it means "no god" or "without god", which is different as I will explain below. So this may be where the problem lies within the discussion….
Traditionally, atheism did mean that one believed that no God existed. People would have varying confidence levels of their claim, of course. Agnosticism means “I don’t know if God exists or not”. Theists believed some God(s) existed.
Can you provide a source for this "traditional" definition? And when was this "traditional" definition in usage? And does anyone use it today?
Because Im not quite sure that's what it means. As I showed in my last post, saying things like "no god" doesn't necessarily mean that no gods exist. And if you claimed that thunder was created by angry gods and a few years later we prove that thunder is created naturally, I would say, "See, no god exists........as the cause of thunder".

I rest my case and I think the case is closed.
"atheism (n.)

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist."
source

.
Well the case is closed. Someone could say, "See, there is no god.......as the cause of thunder" and it wouldn't mean that they believe there are no gods existing, it would mean that no god exists as the cause of thunder.

Post Reply