English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If it is a matter of opinion, who's?
If it is decided by society, how?
Take both questions all the way back to the beginning of recorded human history and answer with solid evidence, not opinions, that can be verified, if you cannot, then do not.
because if it is as the Darwinist evolutionist say according to the law of natural selection, might makes right, and there is no right or wrong, and that the weak die off to make room for the strong, that would mean, Hitler had it right, Stalin had it right, If you say every thing is ok as as long as it doesnt hurt anyone, why? why is that wrong? who decided that? and how? How was the sense of right and wrong decided ?

2006-10-24 01:50:24 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

19 answers

We do seem to all have a concience, so we kindof can tell when we do wrong and right even if we haven't been taught these rules in society. all i can think of is that there is a God out there that put this ability to recognize right and wrong in us.

2006-10-24 01:58:37 · answer #1 · answered by Jen Baby 2 · 2 0

I think that we live in a world today where we are constantly searching for something or someone to blame our mistakes or wrong doings on. If our child walks into their school and guns down their class mates and teacher we blame it on video games or movies. If our children get involved with drugs we blame it on the likes of Marilyn Manson or Eminem. When our young adolesants develop eating disorders we put all the blame on famous people or beauty magazines when realistically they only contribute to 2% of the problem, the real blame lies with the family/parents. The list goes on and on. There are lots of wrongs in this world and some people just need to stop trying to find excuses to justify them and take responcibility for there own actions. You say with Darwins theory that would make Hitler right, you clearly forget that that man and his regime was defeated so that made him the weakest link and us the strongest coz we got rid of him remember?. We all know what right and wrong is, what good and bad is. is does not matter where you come from the answer is inside of you. Thats what makes us human beings so amazing. Its what sets us apart from every other living thing on this planet.

It is our ability to FEEL and the emotions that we humans experience, that long ago determined what is right and wrong, between the good and the bad.

2006-10-24 03:26:21 · answer #2 · answered by Kimberley A 2 · 2 1

thank you. that's unquestionably between the main biblicall and clever assertion I honestly have study to confront Atheists.. The Holy Bible is actual and it extremely is the inspired word of God. I strongly have faith in God. i've got faith that he Created the finished Universe. i could upload that Evolution and enormous bang concept is the main important fraud in human background. Many scientists are waking as much as the certainty that those human theories might desire to many holes. they at the instant are not stable in any respect. have faith God at present and continually. Colossians a million:sixteen Isaiah 40 5:18 Psalm 14:a million Romans 10:9

2016-11-25 01:53:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

If God does not exist, then yes, there is no absolute source for right and wrong. People just do not realize that. If we -did- evolve from an ape-like ancestor, then all Hitler was doing was advancing natural selection. Mother Teresa would have been halting natural selection by caring for the outcasts and diseased. According to evolution, Hitler is right and Mother Teresea is wrong.

However, we -do- have a conscience that is the thing that prompts us when we read about people being sent into crematories or starved unto living skeletons. That conscience is from God, and is what helps us discern between right and wrong.

2006-10-24 01:57:40 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 1 2

You obviously know nothing about evolution. You have completely misinterpreted what natural selection means. Darwin never said that the weak die off to make room for the strong, he said that the fittest organisms are more likely to survive. High fitness does not necessarily mean strength or aggression, it could also be weakness or docility. If those early humans who first practiced morality were more likely to survive (e.g. through helping each other out) then we would expect them to become prevalent in the population. My morality is derived from evolution, but not in the way you think.

2006-10-24 03:24:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Anything that causes harm is wrong-there is no why, because it's a natural development of human societies. Self interest and self preservation led to the development of morality. Darwin, evolution, Stalin and Hitler have no relevance.

2006-10-24 02:02:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

You imply that there are no ways to know what is beneficial to humankind without some dictation from on high. This is simply ludicrous. While I disagree with the idea of Right and Wrong, I will respond to this from the standpoint of differentiating between helpful and harmful.

Human beings understand that there are actions that will be helpful or harmful. It's obvious that we don't want ourselves or our loved ones hurt, and we can extrapolate that this is true for others as well. Therefore, the idea of avoiding actions that can harm others is a commonly held, rational tenet.

Doing what is helpful is a bit trickier, because the ramifications of help can lead to dependence, which is often harmful, or self-righteousness, which is also often harmful. Being helpful requires either a negotiation and mutual agreement regarding the help or a determination that the person cannot negotiate and we are to be helpful without their assent.

Determining that God is the arbiter of right and wrong can actually lead to greater harm. For example, there is little doubt that Gay marriage would be helpful in society: It would lead to more stable relationships, would promote quality health care because of increased insurance coverage, would avoid costly legal maneuvers needed to secure couples' medical and inheritance rights, and would ease anxiety within the couple regarding their legal safety. However, because of citations in the Bible (said to be from God) that homosexuality cannot be condoned, many Christians are preventing this helpful course with nothing to support their objections beyond the statements in the Bible.

This is one example of theistic ethics leading to greater harm. There are countless others that come from all variety of religions, including slavery, subjugation of women, child abuse, murder of witches and other outside-the-faith groups, feudalism, and business restrictions, to name only a few. Each of these harms are (or were) held in place by believers in God's law; ethics gleaned from the rational rule of "do no harm" will prevent these injuries to human life, health & dignity.

Your reference to Darwinian evolution misuses both the evolutionary theory and the term "law." Evolutionary theory refers to responses to environmental pressures, not intra-species murder. The Law of evolution simply states that this is simply the way that nature works, like the law of gravity.

2006-10-24 01:58:33 · answer #7 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2 2

its a matter of MY opinion. Nothing I do is decided by society. I do whats right because I dont want my children growing up to be heathens.

Its a fact that I behave the way I do because I have children. The beginning of civilization doesn't have a drop of tea to do with it. neither does "god"

OH.. THE LAW DOES. IF I DO WRONG, I GO TO JAIL. IF I DONT MURDER ANYONE, IM FREE.

You show your lack of intelligence just by asking this question. YOU Dont be blind and open a book, not a fiction like the bible, but a non-fiction, fact based science book.

2006-10-24 02:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by psychstudent 5 · 1 2

In this society we definitely have the right to be mighty and survive but shouldn`t be terminating someone else`s survival just for our fun and enjoyment or any other secondary issues. Once it`s done for the survival of one`s own , such is right but if done something for the mere pleasure, its wrong. For ex. when a soldier kills the enemy in the war for his own survival at that moment, irs correct but when a person does it in the society simply for any revenge or other secondary issues, its wrong.

2006-10-24 02:04:21 · answer #9 · answered by Friend always there 4 u 2 · 0 1

So what you are saying is that God decides what is right and what is wrong? Wasn't it Jesus who supposedly had the great teachings? And wasn't it mere men who wrote down those teachings in the Bible? The same Bible that is open to interpretation from literally hundreds of different religions?

It seems to me that we all make a concerted effort in making a World that is worth living in.

2006-10-24 01:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by jrayhp 4 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers