How does one decide right vs wrong?

Kelvin · Sep 10, 2002

Regarding ethics, how does one decide what is right or wrong?

Info Note: This is a spin-off topic from the “You might be a liberal if...” thread which partly evolved to “Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative?”. This thread is intended to be a stand-alone thread.

I have pondered this question on many occasions. On each occasion I come up with several different types of answers that eventually boil down to two major answers. Since author Josh McDowell verbalized this concept better than I, I will try to paraphrase what I can remember from a course that I took around 10years ago that used his books “Right from Wrong” and “Truth Matters” (at least I think that’s the name of the books).

Ethics can be classified as either:
(1) ABSOLUTE, meaning that they are
(a) objective (don’t change with a person’s situation or feelings),
(b) universal (are constant for all people, regardless of geographic boundaries), and
(c) constant (never changing; applicable as much today as they were 1000 years ago or 1000 years into the future).

(2) SUBJECTIVE and SITUATIONAL. In this case a person will decide what is right or wrong depending upon the situation involved or how they “feel” at the moment. A legitimate application of this principal is when a person exceeds a posted speed limit while rushing a severely injured person to an emergency room.

Man is only capable of establishing SUBJECTIVE and SITUATIONAL ethics and cannot establish ABSOLUTE ethical guidelines.. For example, the current political leadership in America can establish rules that apply to the current American population, but cannot establish universal rules (that apply to the people of China) or constant rules (applies to American people of the year 1776 or the year 2020 since future leadership may change the rules again).

In order for absolute ethics to be absolute, an entity higher and superior to man must establish the guidelines. Those that don’t believe in higher authority (God or Jesus or possibly another entity superior to man), must believe that absolute ethics do not exist and therefore ALL ethics are subjective and situational.

A world where world leaders (and the people) don’t believe in these “absolutes” results in the situation of (1) every man decides for himself what is right, combined with (2) “might” is “right”. ******, ******, and ***** Bin Laden fit this category of those that don't believe in "absolutes".

For me, it helps to think about these two categories (absolute vs subjective/situational) when I get challenged on any issue of right or wrong. It is my personal belief that as more issues get taken away from the "absolute" category, the more unstable and unpredictable the world gets. I thank God that there are still world leaders that believe in “absolutes” when it comes to ethics.

Kelvin

wroughtn_harv · Sep 11, 2002

Probably the most important thing I can say about this subject is to admit to and appreciate the integrity Kelvin has for initiating the subject. I didn't think he would do it and I was wrong.

The other thing that I think is just as admirable is Mohammed and crew's patience with us to allow such a discussion to take place. They have led us down a fine line that allows us to discuss issues that usually are so flammable that civility is not part of the process. The fact that civil discussions happens here on such subjects like it can happen no where else on the net where I've been says volumes about the management of this site.

I also believe this discussion is probably a lot more important on this day than any other during the year.

In order for absolute ethics to be absolute, an entity higher and superior to man must establish the guidelines. Those that don’t believe in higher authority (God or Jesus or possibly another entity superior to man), must believe that absolute ethics do not exist and therefore ALL ethics are subjective and situational.

I have been racking my brain trying to come up with an absolute category of ethics, right and wrong. Kelvin is going to have to help me out here. It would be nice for him to give us some examples of absolute ethics.

His original question in the other thread that interested me so much was "How do you decide right from wrong?"

First thing on answering that is I don't use any religious perspective on deciding right from wrong.

Here's my logic. Let's say you're an employer. You're looking at the kind of employee you want. Would you want the one who's gonna do the job right and watch out for your interest because of what's in it for them? One where you both understand right up front that it's all about reward?

Or would you want the employee that's gonna do what's required because the understand intimately that if they don't there's punishment? One where your relationship is one where they understand that you are watching and if they screw up there are consequences?

The other alternative would be the employee that you can explain the job to and you know they will do what's right because they have the ability to reason. The employee that will do the job right and watch out for your interests because they understand your relationship and doing it right is the thing to do for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.

Let's look at having a child that's growing into an adult. The same situation exists. Do you want to have your child grow up looking always for a reward because that's the way you raised them? Is the child that does good because there is a reward awaiting them for doing good doing it for the right reasons?

The child who does good because they fear punishment is another one to consider. Can you really trust the child that reacts the way you want out of fear?

Or would you rather have the child that does what's right because they understand that is what one's supposed to do just because of right and wrong? That doing good is it's own reward and doing wrong also gets it's own reward? Don't you think it might be better for the child to grow up understanding that doing right and not doing wrong gets one the most important thing, respect?

Wouldn't it be better to know your child is doing right for all the right reasons. That they do right because it's the rational and reasonable thing because of respect for themselves and others?

Let's say for some reason you had to pick new parents for your child. For some gawdawful reason you and your spouse are going to be out of the picture and you get the opportunity to pick the parents to replace you.

Would you pick parents that are going to raise your child to respond to praise and reward? Would you really want your child to grow up doing the right thing because they knew it would be rewarded?

Would you really want someone to parent your child who no more respect for your child than to think they were incapable of learning without reward?

Would you pick someone to parent your child who depended upon punishment and the threat of punishment for training your child? Would it bother you to have them think so little of your child as to treat them like that? That your child is incapable of learning via discussion and mutual respect?

How about picking a parent that respected your child enough to rationalize with them on issues? Someone who would love the child enough to listen to them? Someone who could explain why things are done the way they are and do it in such a way as to get the point across?

In each of the above scenarios I've given you common religious and secular methodology for imparting knowledge and understanding it.

I don't believe in religion because they all want to treat me without respect as a human being. They assume I'm so stupid that I can't understand that doing good because it's the rational thing to do. That I need to be promised a reward or threatened with punishment.

That thought process contaminates our world. We're mourning a day today where religion blinded a group and they used the principles that religion taught them about themselves to deal with problems with others.

Islam like Christianity teaches about punishment for doing wrong and reward for doing right. It doesn't take much to understand their actions were that. They saw us as infidels who deserved punishment and by doing so they themselves would be rewarded.

What I find interesting is some here would go down my above scenarios and pick the same alternatives I would, for themselves. But they suspect that others are different and need the reward--punishment scenario.

Choosing right from wrong is all about reason and rationalization. When we short circuit the process by simplifying it we do the student a disservice. We also show them severe disrespect by assuming they wouldn't do right if we explained it to them.

This is what religion does. It's done it from the time mankind was afraid of the god in the water because of ignorance and fear of the water. Instead of reasoning about the hazards of the water and then explaining those hazards they came up with a god in the water that would get you. That was and is disrespect for the individual. I can't see where modern religion has changed that principle.

Kelvin · Sep 11, 2002

wroughtn_harv,
Once again I can say that your posts are hard to respond to because they are so long, which forces me to write long posts to properly respond. I’ll try to keep this as short as possible.

Most of your reply dealt with the aspects of what MOTIVATES a person to do right or wrong. I believe that everyone does good and bad based upon a system of rewards, whether it is...

(1) external rewards (example: money or verbal praise in the case of "good" deeds or punishments in the case of "bad" deeds), or
(2) internal rewards (simply feeling good about yourself after a "good" deed or feeling bad following a "bad" deed).

I also believe that everyone is motivated by both type rewards, and that the person who has greater motivation by the internal rewards will be much less likely to be tempted to do evil compared to the person who is predominately motivated by external rewards.

It is hard for me to follow all of your post, but I think that my statements regarding “motivation” above are somewhat in agreement with yours.

My original post asked the question "how do you define what is right and wrong?" and more pointedly, do “absolutes” exist?. Regarding absolutes...

I have been racking my brain trying to come up with an absolute category of ethics, right and wrong. Kelvin is going to have to help me out here. It would be nice for him to give us some examples of absolute ethics.

I guess this is a two part discussion.
(1) Do "absolute" ethics exist? And if so...
(2) What guidelines/rules/ethics should be considered absolute?

To me, absolutes do exist and are established by God. Since you don’t have faith in God, you are left with two options:
(1) Believe that there are no absolutes, or
(2) Believe that there are absolutes which mankind establishes. This I would argue can’t happen, since man cannot establish absolute ethics that apply to ALL mankind across ALL geographic boundries, across ALL time boundries, and NEVER CHANGE.

As to what would be in the list of absolutes if there were to be any, a suggested list would be...
(1) The items in the Ten Commandments
(2) A marriage consists of one man and one woman
(3) Sex should only occur between a man and wife
(4) Sex with animals prohibited
(5) Sex with children prohibited

Of course there could be more suggestions.

Where am I going with this?

If you take the stand that there are no absolutes, then you must accept that it is very possible (and probable) that one day that which you call right will be called wrong, and that which you call wrong will be called right. It would not surprise me at all if in the future that some lawyer will argue that it should be perfectly acceptable and legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 5 year old girl who voluntarily agreed to the sexual encounter in exchange for a candy bar. How could you argue against it if you don't use absolutes?

They aren't married (that went out in the 1960s)
She is too young to have sex (is age discrimination allowable here?)
She is too young know what she volunteered for (besides the age discrimination issue again, she was competent enough to know how good that candy bar tasted; and besides, what is the definition of "is"?)
Her parents didn't approve (Who cares? Are parents allowed to be involved with their children's sexual decisions? The American government already tries to say that children should be able to get abortions and access to birth control without parent knowledge, and I know of no age limits on this government interference initiative.)

I know that the above discussion is SICK, but it matches the sick feeling I have regarding where America is headed in its attempt to get out from “under God”. It is like my mother used to say, “Be careful of what you ask for; you might just get it.”

Kelvin

PitbullMidwest · Sep 11, 2002

Morning Harv,

I must agree that today is an appropriate day to take up this discussion.

It took you awhile to say it but you finally did:Choosing right from wrong is all about reason and rationalization. This would put you squarely in Kelvin's SUBJECTIVE and SITUATIONAL ethics catagory. But what makes your reason and rationalization any more valid than Charles Manson, Bill Clinton or George Bush's? I've read of African societies that find a person's ability to deceive others as a favorable trait. They've reasoned it out and rationalized that deception for one's own gain is ethical. I hold that deception for personnal gain is unethical. Both cannot be "right".

What if instead of deception, rape was concidered ethical and encouraged? Don't know of any society that supports rape but there are rapists world wide that have reasoned it out and rationalized their behavior. To say it is unethical (wrong) would deny them their respect as a human being.

Like Kelvin, I trust in the absolutes of the Bible. Do I always follow them? No. Why? Because sometimes the reasoning and rationalization of my flesh overpower my better judgement. I always regret it too. Maybe that's the best argument for SUBJECTIVE and SITUATIONAL ethics, no regrets for anything you've ever done.

looch · Sep 11, 2002

To me, absolutes do exist and are established by God. Since you don’t have faith in God, you are left with two options:
(1) Believe that there are no absolutes, or
(2) Believe that there are absolutes which mankind establishes. This I would argue can’t happen, since man cannot establish absolute ethics that apply to ALL mankind across ALL geographic boundries, across ALL time boundries, and NEVER CHANGE.

I guess it depends on who you believe wrote the Bible.

wroughtn_harv · Sep 11, 2002

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding my posts Kelvin. I'll try to be more literate. I apologize for the length also. I'll try to be less verbose.

Thank you for your polite reply. I'd like to address your list of absolutes.

As to what would be in the list of absolutes if there were to be any, a suggested list would be...
(1) The items in the Ten Commandments
(2) A marriage consists of one man and one woman
(3) Sex should only occur between a man and wife
(4) Sex with animals prohibited
(5) Sex with children prohibited

Since your choices appear to come directly from the bible allow me to ask you a question on a chapter in Numbers that makes your items 1,2, and 3 scripturally situational and not really an absolute.

As a background let's review that the ten commandments occur in Exodus chapter twenty if I recall correctly. So the absolute laws defined in the ten commandments was in place some time before the events described in Numbers 31.

What is disconcerting for many biblical scholars is the principal involved in making policy in both situations, Exodus 20 and Numbers 31, was the same individual, Moses. And in both situations his position was indemified by his god.

If you've got your bible open to Numbers 31 you will notice the men of god have been victorious in battle over an enemy of god. They return home with the booty (scriptural description, don't grin, ain't polite).

Verse 8 describes how they killed all the males.

Verse 9 describes how they took prisoner all the children and women.

Verse 12 describes how they took all the booty to Moses for his inspection.

Verses 14, 15, and 16 describe Moses' wrath at them bringing women and male children in as prisoners.

Verse 17 has the person, Moses, who delivered the ten commandments delivering a death sentence to all the male children and any female that had known a man sexually.

Verse 18, Moses says, "But all the women children, that have not known a man, keep alive for yourselves."

As I said, I think that's contrary to the ten commandments unless of course they're a situational kind of thing. One has to wonder whether adultery is wrong biblically absolutely or if it is like in the case of Abraham okay with a slave, situationally.

To keep it short I'll stop this post now for you. I hope you can give me an explanation that will clear up this question for me.

Boondox · Sep 11, 2002

I know that the above discussion is SICK, but it matches the sick feeling I have regarding where America is headed in its attempt to get out from “under God”. 

What's god have to do with it? I don't mean that in a mean-spirited or argumentative way, but one does not require an extrinsic locus of control to do good...or bad.

Imagine you lived in a primitive society in which that which was not understood was attributed to a deity. Most cultures experienced this in their early days, and some never grew beyond it. Now imagine you were one of the few learned, literate men in that society. Imagine that you wanted to codify all that was good and noble about humanity. Could that just possible describe the origin of the bible, the koran, the bagivad gita (sp?) It in no way detracts from the message to say that god was created in man's image instead of the other way around.

Probably the mere thoughts expressed herein twisted some knickers, but it really is possible to do good simply because your heart is full of goodness.

And if I'm wrong, and burn in hell for all eternity, isn't that my business? I think the problems facing America have less to do with religion or lack thereof than with zealotry. I dislike Christian zealots no more or less than zealous atheists. It's the "god (or lack thereof) works for me and [censored] you it'll work for the rest of the nation too!" brand of fundamentalism I disdain. Ahem. Remember the good old days when Christians prayed for the doomed souls of atheists...and atheists pitied the christians for all the time they were wasting in church..? We got along much better in those pre-evangelical days. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Pete

karmakanic · Sep 11, 2002

The nut of this discussion boils down to the question: Is man inheritly good or is man inheritly evil? Once you answer this question in your own mind, then everything else flows from it.

If man is evil, then he needs an absolute power to keep him on the "right" path. If he is good, then he is capable of staying on the path himself.

Of course, there's also the problem that if we need an absolute power, who are going to be the chosen few to deciper and relay the "message" to the rest of us huddled masses.

Personally, I believe man is good, and if left to his own devices will make the right choice. That isn't to say there aren't evil men. But in the end, the strenght of good men will outweigh the force of evil men. I think history pretty well backs this up.

Once I've decided men are by nature good, then it flows that
today is better then yesterday, and tomorrow will be better then today.

Personally, this philosophy is how I want to live my life. I think it would be a bummer to have to go through life believing the oposite.

FWIW,
Dave Perry

Chuck52 · Sep 11, 2002

Harv, Pete & Dave,

I'd weigh in but you guys are doing a better job than I usually manage. I especially like Pete's version of "can't we all just get along", even if the answer is, in all likelihood, NO.

Chuck