On the contrary,
I think one step is enough, Alex!
Then he would get an answer he doesn’t enjoy!You could always stamp on his foot or spit in his eye and challenge him to show why it was wrong.
Yes.
1-Yes, there truly is such a thing as right and wrong.
Not according to Shakespeare in Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Why might one take Shakespeare’s take on this matter seriously?
Assuming that is true, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ still exist as categories of thought.
Perhaps because he was a brilliant poet and philosopher. But of course we don’t have to agree with Shakespeare on this matter.
We either learn these categories from the environment or they are pre-wired, or both. A former psychology professor of mine, when I was in graduate school, wrote an interesting article on the pre-wiring of dichotomies in our minds and brains. According to her hypothesis, we have a biological tendency toward dichotomies or dualities, rather than trichotomies and other combinations. Very young children first learn the difference between living beings and inanimate objects and refuse to believe that one can be transformed into another. Then they learn other categories, such as boy and girl, and so on.
However, couldn’t that “conceptual substance” with which the words are connected be non-existent in reality, such as the concept of unicorn? (Or did unicorns exist?)PRO: The words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ appeared to be used meaningfully. Hence, they must connect (or be understood as connecting) with some conceptual substance, otherwise no-one would ever use them as words.
HOWEVER: As different people say different things are ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ it appears that there is no agreement as to the conceptual substance designated by these terms, or the criteria by which they may be determined.
FUTHERMORE: The possibility of something being ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ would seem to depend upon a subject who apprehends it. Thus an event in space (such as an explosion), perceived by no-one, cannot in itself be wrong or right. For it is not until we perceive (or conceive) of the event that it can be qualified as either. So, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ would seem to describe subjective responses, rather than the thing itself.
These subjective responses depend upon perceptions, which are relative, and upon the criteria assigned to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which would also appear relative.
CONCLUSION: It would seem that the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist. Beyond this, it would seem that nothing can be determined about the matter.
And hence follows Phyrronean quietude…
If someone walks up to you and without provocation or cause, hits you so hard as to knock you out and break your jaw and for the next 6 weeks your are drinking soup and milkshakes, and afterward you develop the painful TMJ syndrome for the rest of your life - would you call that “good” or “bad” ? And would you be able to justify your decision, could you actually prove your bodily damage was “good” or “bad”?
Obviously, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ don’t have physical reality, since they are accidents, not substances (one can’t find a piece of ‘rightness’- at least, it would seem so know, according to my understanding of ‘rightness’). That doesn’t mean that they are vapid of ‘real’ meaning. Take a ‘equal sign’, “=”. Now, ‘equality’ doesn’t ‘exist’ in ‘reality’, but it can still be used to make meaningful designation.
I understand “right” and “wrong” are not tangible concepts. I just thought if a concrete concept we talk about may not exist in the real world, perhaps an abstract concept may also not exist.