Is there really a such thing as "RIGHT & WRONG"?? Or IS "RIGHT & WRONG" just the accepted custom??

Question

Since everything you know is just what you've learned from other people, how do you know it is RIGHT?? What if everything you've learned is WRONG?? How do you know that Stealing is REALLY the right thing to do?? How do you know giving a handshake is really a sign of disagreement?? What if everything is really backwards?? How do you prove it????

Answer 1

First, you have to recognize that your basic question is about morality (right and wrong), but some of your examples are not moral in nature. The meaning of a handshake, for example, is not a matter of morality--it is a social convention. So we have to be careful to distinguish examples that really work.

In things like handshakes, it is a matter of social convention. Different societies have different norms which they follow. For example, there is nothing wrong with crossing your legs while seated in America. But in the Middle East, showing the bottom of your foot to someone is to insult them. So crossing your legs has different meanings in different cultures. When you are in different cultures, you need to know what the customs are in order to get along well.

In morality, however, things are different. Some people believe that morality is also just a matter of accepted customs, but there are no good reasons to believe that this is so. If it were, then there would be some unacceptable consequences.
1) Moral progress would never be possible; when the morals change, they do not get better of worse, they just get ... well, different. But we do feel that some changes are for the better.
2) If this were true then the minority could never be right. In order to be right, it would have to be agreed upon by the majority. But this seems very strange when we talk about people who lead to change. One day--while their view is still in the minority--their belief is wrong; the next day--when they have converted a few moe people and their view is in the majority--they are right. Their belief has not changed, but its rightness/wrongness has changed. This seems strange.
3) Moral criticism would be impossible. We would not be able to criticize the morals of Nazi Germany, or the morality of slave owners. Since that moral practice is accepted in that society, it must be "right for them." But this, too, seems very strange.

In short, there are no good reasons for accepting ethical relativism--the belief that each society determines morality for itself. There are certain rules without which a society cannot exist. Every culture, for example, recognizes moral rules against murder--without such rules, society would be impossible. So it is not entirely up to each society to decide for itself.

Second, it seems that a society would want to use the moral rules that lead to the greatest good for the people in their society. But those who really believe that morality is simply a matter of choice cannot acknowledge such a guide to social rule-making.

I've taken a lot of time to point out that morality cannot simply be a matter of accepted customs. So what is morality?

While there are different (good) ideas, let me briefly share two different approaches. First, the deontologists (duty ethics in particular) say that morality needs to be logically consistent. Rationality tells us what morality allows--and if something cannot be logically acceptable/consistent, then it must be wrong. Thus, morality is a matter of rational thought. (We are talking about the type of rational thought that we all share--like the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. This is true for all people, and all people thinking rationally will come to the same conclusion. Morality uses that sort of logical and rational thought, so it does NOT vary from one person to another.)

Second, the theory of virtue ethics (Aristotle's theory) points out that "good"--the moral goal--means "to perform our function well." Just as the function of a chair is to support a person while seated and a good chair is one which performs this function well, so a good person is one who performs the function of a person well. What is the function of a person? To act according to reason and to live by the virtues. That is, we need to develop a moral character and allow it to direct our conduct.

The point of bringing these out is to show that there are good "objective" guides to morality. It is NOT--it cannot be--simply a matter of personal choice or social custom. There are no good reasons for believing that way. Morality does exist, and there are objective guides to morality which help us to know what it is.

Answer 2

Hmm..good question. Intriguing actually, but I think that you have to figure it out for yourself. Societies grow and develop over time. As a society we basically decide what is acceptable and what isn't. When new trends come in, they grow huge because as a society we accept it. We've decided that stealing is wrong so laws were made. Now if we would have decided it was ok to steal than we wouldn't need jobs or money. We wouldn't have an economy! We would basically just take what we want and be lazy bums. The only problem with that is we wouldn't progress with technology. If we couldn't make money off of our ideas no one would really care to venture. But then again if money isn't an object more risks might be taken. I guess it depends on the angle you look at.

Also, we were born with a conscience (I think that's how it's spelled). That's how we, for our own selves, figure out what's really right and wrong out there.

Answer 3

Learn from objective evidence (beware of bias), not authority. Also, keep all knowledge tentative. If our purpose is to survive and pass on DNA, then stealing might be reasonable if there is low risk and high rewards. Handshakes probably started as a sing os peace (no weapon, here's my hand to prove it)...


Someone above wrote "There are a few things that every human knows is wrong" but didn't give any examples. As a philosophy and anthropology major, mnoral relativity is one of my prime interests. I can tell you that for any moral code possible there is some culture that won't fit into it.. Good and evil are simply consctucts of our culture... furthermore, they could not exist without eachother (ying-yang) evil is only evil relative to good, so good is part of the evil equasion.

Empirical knowledge (the only kind I think we can have) should always be conscidered tentative and finite

Answer 4

sure and No randkl did an excellent job explaining how a bullet curves and suprised he did not element out the earths rotation which must be calculated for extraordinarily lengthy photos. in case you ever get a danger to do anybody thousand backyard capturing you may have a hoot observing the circulate of a bullet by a recognizing scope pretty in a extreme wind. besides the undeniable fact that once you're saying curving a bullet I truly have a felling you're relating offering forces on a bullet causing it to curl like a baseball. i imagine i myself talked about a movie pre-view and probable the position that's coming from of someone capturing even as transferring their gun in an arch to curl the bullet and hit their purpose. this can do no longer something that you'll boot getting your self shot contained in the foot in case your timing isn't suitable. "Curving a bullet" previous organic forces is organic Hollywood.

Answer 5

Here is something I learned from rzim.org in the radio archives....
"How is it that we determine right from wrong?Is it really a product of our environment? No. There are a few things that every human knows is wrong. If there is such a thing as good(right) then there must be a moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil(wrong). If there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, but philosopically, if there is no moral law giver, then there is no moral law, no moral law means no good and no good means no evil.

What is a "conscious"? Why is it that your conscious only speaks to you on issues of morality(right & wrong)? Why is it that it speaks to you, not you to it? Where does it come from? If we truly listen to your conscious you KNOW its wrong to steal, you KNOW its wrong to torture,etc.(of course, there are many other things that need to be discussed after a statement like that). "

Are morals universal? It cannot be based on what we "feel" is right or wrong", what would happen to minorities? And if we as humans are to define morality then we tend to forget minorities.........It leaves open a possibility that there is a way we ought to act.......

Answer 6

We are mind, body and spirit. You accept this or you don't. As such our spirit acclaims what is right and wrong. Our flesh seems to lean to the things of the flesh that are a temptation to our faith in God. God is the moral right. God is love. Love is the expansion of ones own or anther's spiritual growth. (Dr Scott Peck) We are more or less programmed by God to know what is right or wrong. This is what Dr Carl Jung means's when he says "God is the collective subconscious mind"

Answer 7

About the best discussion I've ever heard on this topic can be found in the first section of C. S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity. You can find a rough overview of the discussion in the link bellow.

Answer 8

Do you consider yourself to be a good person???
If you have ever told a lie... you are liar.
If have ever stolen anything.........you are theif.
If you died and were standing before God on judgment day,

Would you be innocent or guilty?

Would you go to Heaven or Hell?

For some Good News email me!
[e-mail]

Answer 9

I've been wondering the same thing myself. I guess u just gotta listen to ur conscience...it usually is right...

Answer 10

no. whats right to you is wrong to others. there is nothing as right and wrong, just accepted, and rejected norms.