So without GOD... is there really a such thing as RIGHT and WRONG???

Question

I imagine this has been posted before but... if there is no supreme, omniscient, omnipotent being, how can there really be a right and wrong? I understand a majority in society can determine what is CONSIDERED to be right and wrong, but on an individual level how can you tell someone what they do is right and wrong.

The way I see it, the only way to say what is absolutely right and wrong is for there to be a being greater than us, and who created everything, because then He has the right to determine what should and should not be. Otherwise, I don't see how any individual, or even a majority of people, can tell another person that something they do is wrong. Sure, society can put an individual in jail or punish them however, but what I'm saying is, can we really consider what they did to be wrong. Maybe a better term would be "not condusive to the well being of society."

Just thinking. Not really looking for a religous argument. Just your thoughts on this theory. Thanks.

Answer 1

You happened to be Christian(i would presume), so you know what is like to disbelief in the teachings of Muslims,Jews,Pagans,Hindus, and other religions. If they believe that their god(s) said something, then they can't absolutely argue against that something. There is no way to debate anymore(it's just true to them). People in every religion Constantly fights over which is right or wrong. We can also find other religion that have been intolerant and violent from the past. When you look around ALL religions, we can't determine which is the true religion. And It is illogical to determine which religion is right or wrong by asking a person from a particular religion/belief.

That's why my morals came from sympathy and reason

Answer 2

There are many atheists who believe there are absolute standards of morality. Objectivists, for instance. I'm not one of them. I believe that morality is subjective and that we derive our moral views from many sources including society, our personal experience, biology, our education, etc.

Applying my own moral values, I often judge the conduct of others to be right or wrong. Everyone does, in my experience. This does not mean that I am saying that by some absolute standard this is right and that is wrong. It means that applying my own values I judge it wrong. I fully acknowledge that by another person's values it might be called right.

As a society we make laws. We get together and try to reach consensus on what most of us think is right and most think is wrong. Most of us think it's right to make laws to enforce this consensus. personally, though, I'd say that the less consensus there is on a moral value, the more it should be left up to the individual to decide. Torturing an animal because you find its pain amusing is almost universally condemned in our society, so we make laws about it. Slaughtering that animal to eat it is condemned by some, approved by others. So we try to find the consensus in our moral opinions and enforce that- you can slaughter animals, but certain methods we consider too painful are banned.

Now on an individual level, a vegetarian can still call it wrong and declare that those who kill animals are doing wrong. Even if the vegetarian is only stating their own opinion and doesn't believe that some supernatural being has so declared it.

Of course the question of how we would know what a god thinks even if there is a god is another question and I've only had time to quickly summarize my answer to this question.

Answer 3

I think I know what you mean, humans aren't capable of determining right from wrong. Your God made you without the intelligence to govern your own actions. I tend to disagree.

If you believe in God maybe that belief gives God power over your decisions, so your reality is God is the factor, not your own human decency.

We all have the nature we were born with. Society decides what is acceptable. We learn the rules but our own individual nature determines if we are "good" or "bad". My guess is most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We don't break any laws, we're just decent folk trying to get along.

Answer 4

a great form of dogmaticism on the two sides so some distance, yet no one incredibly addressing the actual subject right here. needless to say you're able to be an atheist and have faith issues. yet on the grounds that many atheists deny the validity of religious faiths on the inspiration of a faith vs. reason cut up, that could desire to be disingenuous. in case you are able to merely have faith something without reasoned protection for what you think, then it is tricky to disclaim yet another concept hence of its irrationality. So while you're an atheist who argues alongside those lines, you're able to desire to respond to the question it fairly is actual being posed right here: if there is not any God, what motives are there for ethical action? Do those motives word to each physique? If no longer, how can we govern human society? it fairly is actual what's at subject. we could ask the question in yet in any different case by skill of announcing "Can an atheist be ethical without resorting to basic abstractions without rational foundation (i.e. justice, love, equality, and so on.)?" If no longer, then they behave precisely by way of fact the non secular human beings they criticize, and that's the topic.

Answer 5

You make a vaild point, but the words wrong and right are just words. And one of the definitions of "wrong" is exactly what you said "Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention."

But for me there is definetly right from wrong. There are things you do in your life that have either negative effects on yourself, or on others, which in my opinion is wrong. Although depending on the person some wrongs could be rights. Vice versa you can do things that have positive effects on people and yourself which to me is considered right.

If someone was to kill my dog, to me that would be wrong because I love my dog and would be extremely angry if someone where to kill her.

So I guess my point is that it all depends on the individuals idea of what is right or wrong to them. In other words, if it is unfair, unjust, incorrect, or doesn't conform to your own personal truths then its wrong.

Answer 6

Right and wrong would be determined by how the majority feel and really already are.
One of the definitions of right is...Most favorable, desirable, or convenient. It is most favorable and desirable for one to survive and for ones species to survive, so yes right does describe it correctly.
Even a child can learn right from wrong just from experience, without having to be told.

They know when they cry they are sad or hurt, they don't like it, they don't like the way they feel when they make someone cry, so eventually they will not repeat the behavior.
They know it hurts to touch something hot, so it is wrong to touch something hot.
Right and wrong are based on how actions make them feel. I do not hurt others, not because it is illegal or others tell me it is wrong, I do not do it because it makes me feel bad when someone hurts me and it makes me feel bad to hurt someone. Thus it is wrong to hurt others.

Answer 7

You can say the exact thing about god. Just because god says something is wrong for you to do, doesn't mean people are going to agree with it or go along with it. And isn't it also the case that its just what god CONSIDERS to be right or wrong? What if we disagree with god? We have minds and intelligence and we can think for ourselves. Just a thought.

Answer 8

If you take religion out of the equation then the thing that tells you what is rigth or wrong is the way you were raised, your conscience, and society.

P.S. That formula works even when you put religion back into the equation.

Answer 9

without god morality is subjus=ect to change from person to person. So you're absolutely right, no one person or a majority of people can decide where the line is between right and wrong. It can only be what is better for society as a whole.

Answer 10

Whenever I see a nonsense like this, I am appalled to be reminded that there are people out there who are so out of touch with their basic humanity, and reality, that they would not have any idea how to conduct themselves in society, absent the code of an imaginary supernatural being, based on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders.

Cooperation, altruism and love are innate properties of human existence... a more sophisticated version of the social organization that you can see among pods of dolphins or orcas, packs of wolves, lion prides and troops of chimpanzees. Moral consensus, moral conscience and mutual empathy are evolved survival traits. These are social constructs... the social lubrication that allows people to exist together. People come away with the misconception that they don't exist, absent religion. The religious puppet masters try to perpetuate that idea, in order to protect their conduits to wealth and power... but that is a canard. This has to do, entirely, with human nature.

***********************
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
***********************