Another different question;
Can there be right or wrong? I have been having this sort of discussion with my friend, and was wondering as to how one may subjugate this without, at the end of it being, that God exists and that He makes it so by His nature?
I ask this in both senses of what is right and wrong. As in, morally right and wrong, and as in, correct answer right and wrong.
The second one is easier. If you refer to a problem of “nature”, a question pertaining to physical reality, then obviously there is a correct (right) and many incorrect (wrong) answers. The correct answer will accurately reflect reality, the incorrect will not, and both can be verifed objectively.
The other one needs a bit of groundwork. But the answer can come first: yes there is such a thing as morally right and morally wrong behavior, and they are objective, too - they are just not absolute.
But this needs more explanation. We have to consider the following concepts: beneficial vs. harmful, good vs. bad, morally right vs. morally wrong. We also have to consider four levels of existence, inanimate matter, living organisms without a nervous system, living organisms with a nervous system but without higher brain functions, and living organisms with higher brain functions (consciousness).
To inanimate matter none of the beneficial, harmful, etc. concepts can be applied. A pebble does not “care” if it has a “pleasing” round shape or not. The sea does no good nor bad to a pebble when it polishes of the sharp edges.
Living organisms are different. To a plant it is beneficial to have the proper amount of subshine and rain. But the plant does not “care”, if the circumstances are harmful, it just ceases to exist, and that is all. Its demise can be beneficial to others, but the plant does “know” that. The wind can break off a branch and the tree does not feel pain.
Living organisms with a nervous system (but no higher brain functions) are yet a different phenomena. They do experience pain, but not mental anguish. To them it does matter to feel pleasure and avoid pain. This can be observed by looking at their behavior.
But in a world of these beings (without consciousness) there is no moral or immoral behavior. When the cat “plays” with the mouse, it does not know that the mouse is afraid, it only “knows” that the “playing” will increase the blood sugar of the mouse and make its meat taste better.
Finally, the world with humans (or other conscious beings). The categories of “moral” and “immoral” enter the picture. Up until this point we probably agree.
The materialist / atheist definition of morality (and you will probably disagree with it):
“The written and unwritten rules of a specific society in a specific time”. What society “expects” from its members. How people “ought to” behave according to the generally accepted norms. Deviation from the norms can be considered criminal, or merely in bad taste, depending on the acts and circumstances.
In a primitive tribal soceity cannibalism was considered “moral” though it usually was restricted to eating the warriors of other tribes. Even those societies consider eating women and children unacceptable. Their morality was imposed on them by the scarcity of proteins. They did not eat their own tribesme, however they left old people to die when resources ran low was acceptable.
Today we find cannibalism reprehensible, but not absolute. In the famous tragedy of the plane lost in the Andes when people had to resort to cannibalism no one “threw the first stone”. Extraordinary circumstances will make accepted rules irrelevant, and a new “set of rules” must be put in place.
Before you or someone else brings up the Holocaust: the majority of the people in Germany disagreed with the extermination of Jews and other minorities, they were simply intimidated to speak their mind. Therefore the Holocaust cannot be considered “moral”. It did not reflect the rules, it was violating them.
Unfortunately it happens sometimes that people’s views get distorted to such an extent that they will view other humans as “sub-humans” and will not extend the protection of soceity to those. In such a society otherwise totally reprehensible behavior will become the norm, what they consider “moral”.
Unlike the Nazi Germany in the 20th century, in Europe during the middle ages the pogroms against the Jews were accepted and they were kept in ghettos. Jews were viewed as the “murderers” of Jesus, they were considered to be sub-humans. Of course that fact that Jews held considerable fortunes did not help either. The religious fanaticism combined with envy made the Jews the perfect target.
In America blacks were considered to be sub-humans to be worthy only of slavery. These views were the “norms” and the few dissenters were persecuted. (“Mississippi burning”, anyone?) Where did these views come from? You guessed right, they came from the Bible. Therefore in those times it was the “moral” behavior.
One final example. In Brazil, which is a predominantely Catholic country, women are treated as goddesses - until marriage. After marriage, it is a whole different story. If the husband orders his wife to bring a can of beer, and she does not jump, he can mutilate or even kill her. Ditto, if she wants to get education against his will. So far it is pretty horrible, but that is not the worst. If he can hide from the police for 24 hours, he can go and declare what he did, claim that “she violated his honor” - and the case is closed.
Sorry for the long post, but your questions could not be answered in a “sound-bite”.
