Fundamentals of right and wrong?

Question

Ive been pondering this question a while, and please do the same before you arbitrarily spit out some superficial answer: what makes wrong wrong and what makes right right?

why is selflessness moral and selfishness condoned? why is caring for others "good" and, say, beating someone up "bad"

ive got a few ideas, i'd like to see what other people think...

and plz, no "god says so" answers...think deep ppl

Answer 1

The best naturalistic philosophy can offer is rooted in the word PRIVATION.

The word 'privation' is defined as the lack of the basic necessities or comforts of life and the condition resulting from such lack. Related to this is the idea of Perfection: A thing is perfect in which nothing is wanting of its nature, purpose or end.

Since human beings require many things to exist (food, rest, oxygen, etc.), the privation of these "basic necessities" is evil. The word 'evil', then, is rooted in the concept of the absence of good (or necessity). Note, it is not the mere absence of *any* good (a rock does not see, but it's not supposed to); it is the absence of a good which is intended or ought to be. Hence, the *deprivation* of these basic necessities is evil.

Human beings, as social mammals, must enact regulations which preserve, to the best extent possible, the retention and enjoyment of these basic necessities else society would disintegrate. A consequence of these regulations is the curtailment of some choices due to the encroachment those choices would make upon the rights of others.

Morality would then be defined as the societal rules which perpetuate the existence of society and evil is that which disrupts the system.

Of course, I could write a book on every point made, but that is not what you're asking for.

It should be obvious that nothing I've typed, so far, has gotten us closer to morality or ultimate evil because nobody has ever provided an adequate reason WHY we should respect the rights of others. Remember, many societies have thrived while committing moral atrocities (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Roman Empire). There is an underlying reason why we should respect the rights of others, but no logical explanation has been forthcoming from the naturalistic camp.

God is a Necessary Being and, as such, is maximally perfect. If God is the Creator (designer) of all things, then perfection flows necessarily from His Being. All deviations from that design are a consequence of evil. Hence, there is an objective, ultimate standard for morality.

I have briefly described the theological idea of perfection. Please allow me to elaborate. Evil is a privation, or the absence of some good (perfection) which belongs properly to the nature of the being. There is, therefore, no positive source of evil. Things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things.

Again, evil is defined as a privation of form, order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. Everything else possesses limited being, and, insofar as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order and degree, good. Evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have (see Thomas Aquinas).

According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings. Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject, as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the morality of a human act consists in its agreement or non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results (see A.C. O'Neil).

Hence, natural disasters cannot be classified as *sin* (moral evil). Natural disasters can cause privation (evil), but there can be no moral culpability unless the disaster is caused by deliberate human or fallen angelic agency. If God is the efficient cause of a disaster (e.g. The Great Flood), then it is the consequence of His judgment of sin.

To put it in plain old country boy English: All New Yorkers are Americans, but not all Americans are New Yorkers. Similarly, all sin is evil, but not all evil is sin.

I hope this helps and if you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to email.

Best wishes,
Scalia

Answer 2

I'd say we all want to live the best and most fulfilling life we can, without hinderance from other people to ruin said life, so we respect that when dealing with other people. I suppose its the golden rule.

To determine the rightness or wrongness of action I'd say an easy way is to see if it was performed on you whether or not you'd like/benefit/enjoy/derive positiveness from it, then its right.

You'd like other people to care for you, so its good for you to do so. If you were to be beat up, it would interfere with such a good life, and so is bad for you to do it. This stretches across all people as a result, and so the concept of right and wrong becomes universal by default.

Answer 3

From a secular point of view, right and wrong is just society's attempts to make everyone get along so society can continue. It is good for society (meaning me) if you sacrifice your self interest and help others. It is good for society (again me) if you refrain from beating up people. So instilling morality is a matter of behavior modification, i.e. rewards (usually praise) and punishments.

From a Christian view, morality is almost a byproduct. The main focus is on a relationship with God. This relationship changes our very being. Christians want to please God in the same way husbands want to please their wives and wives their husbands.

If God created us all to be His sons and daughters, then we are all to treat each other as brothers and sisters. That idea is behind Christian morality. I want to treat you as I would want to be treated because, in some way I don't fully understand, we are both part of the same family.

Answer 4

Ok Dude:
Right and Wrong are man made RULES. MADE UP.
by MAN. RIGHT OR WRONG ARE NOT SET IN STONE BY GOD. CHECK IT OUT YO. THERE IS NOTHING GOD COMMANDS OF US< FOR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD THAT SERVE??? HE MERELY OBSERVES OUR cHOICES, HOWEVER HE NEVER NEVER INTERFERES.
HE NEVER JUDGES. NEVER.

GOOD and BAD are deemed either GOOD or BAD based on SOMEONE ELSE"S EXPERIENCE of it causing that to mean it is SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION or DISTORTED THOUGHT ABOUT A THING

Selflessness means you love someone more than you LOVE your self. However the only way you are able to absolutely LOVE truly unconditionally LOVE someone else is if you LOVE you that way first, SO in order to learn that you must first LEARN to be SELFISH by CENTERING YOUR SELF and controlling your self forgiving your self healing, learning to be unconditional.
Dude, you had nothing to lose know those FALSE REALITIES, what would it HURT to consider some of mine?????????? thanx bg.

Answer 5

Kant's categorical imperative explains it quite well if I recall. Act only as you would if that behavior were to become universal law.
in other words: the golden rule, Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Answer 6

For me it is because God said it in his word.His ways are higher than mine.