Can right be distinguished from wrong, good or evil? (is good really good and is bad really bad)?

Answer 1

Valid question. Usually we all have ideas about what is good and what is wrong. Example, helping poor people or helping someone in need is considered good. Killing someone and hurting someone with your words is considered bad.
But goodness and evil behavior can be different in religious level. Example, Some fundamentalist Muslim people find it okay to murder someone in the name of Allah. They truly believe that they are walking on the righteous path by doing that. In other religions, this kind of behavior is considered wrong.

Answer 2

Oh, this is one of the BIG religious questions. There are people who say every act can be classified without regard for circumstances. Good acts are always good, bad acts are always bad.

There are others who say intentionality matters, or even results. There is a whole branch of psychology that opened up a few decades ago, called "Situation Ethics". (This is the school that asked questions like, "If a reknowned scientist and your grandpa were both trapped in a burning building and you could only rescue one, which would you choose?" The idea was that there were greater goods, or lesser evils, depending on how we performed actions and that the actions themselves were morally neutral.

Religious pundits absolutely condemned any notion that an act's virtue could be modified by when, where and for whom it was performed. The principal objection was the ambiguity it brought to ethical discussion. Who decides who or what is more "valuable" (valuable to whom?). It seems they were most concerned about the authority of God, who would be the only one qualified to give an objective opinion. God makes the rules, God decides what's important. No exceptions.

But opponents point out that good intentions can produce bad results, and nothing happens in a vacuum. People in favorable circumstances benefit from a "good" act, but people in the wrong places and at the wrong times can suffer terrible, even unintented, consequences. The abortion wars are an obvious example of this issue, but it can be applied to economic policies and most any war.

The labels often used these days are "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism". Absolutists insist on unarguable conformity to the moral models they promote and are accused of insensitivity to individuals. Relativists argue that only general ethical principles (such as peace, life, freedom or proportionality) are valid and that ethical decisions have to be made on the ground with the best information available. They've been accused of dismantling any consistent, reliable standards for morality.

You may notice that absolutists tend to use the word "morals" while relativists use "ethics". "Morals" comes from the Latin "mores", which means "customs", the things that people commonly do. The Greek word "ethos" more properly means "character", the ways that people tend to think. The words indicate the two approaches. Moralists want people to act consistently according to the rules, without murky "justifications". Ethicists want people to think about the implications of what they are doing and modify their behavior accordingly.

I don't think the debate will ever be resolved. To speak in sociological terms, social norms and mores develop because they have the best track records of preserving civilization and social order, but they can be very unfair to individuals, greatly favoring some and crushing others. Personally, I find the relativism more compassionate, but it can indeed be murky without consideration of the overall guiding principles. People need to ask themselves what we are trying to accomplish as a society, at both the macro and the individual level, then develop matching principles, and act in harmony with those principles. But getting a consensus is hard to do. Absolutism is simple and easy, but who ever said easy was good?

Answer 3

This is a good question. My answer is simple. If there is a God then there are absolutes. The Creator has a right to define what is good and what is bad. These are absolutes that individuals and society can reject or accept. Irregardless they remain good and bad.

In the absence of a Creator there is no absolute in my opinion. Good or evil is determined by society and/or by the individual. The concept of right will vary from society to society. What I consider good may be considered evil by another.

I'm not by the way talking about failures. Even with a Creator as we have seen, individuals may choose to sin and obey their own values. I'm simply saying that only if there is a Creator can there be an absolute right or wrong.

Pastor John

Answer 4

Right and wrong can be distinguished very easily. "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you". Fairly simple. You don't steal because you don't want your stuff stolen. You don't lie because you hate to be lied to, etc.

But 'good' and 'evil' are more difficult to understand. What seems evil to humans is very different from what God does with that evil. It's really not about good and evil... it's much more serious than that...it's about life and death.

Answer 5

well God said Adam and Eve could distinguish the difference...

Answer 6

Yes.

Answer 7

Bananas are really good, and salty coffee is bad.

Answer 8

Evil is anything that prevents you from accomplishing your will.

Answer 9

It's all about choice. The results of the choice should be obvious.

Answer 10

yes but it takes time to discern
good for human from bad for human

and adult good is sex