Truth Revealed About Right and Wrong

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Okay, since there are so many who are convinced there is an absolute right and wrong that exists for some reason, I will clarify the truth about right and wrong, good and bad.

If you do not believe in science, then this will seem an invalid argument. I think it also should be mentioned that it requires faith to assume one can believe some things that science shows us, but disbelieve other things science shows us. It all works on the same system of gathering evidence and data, performing tests, and making conclusions. There are no sects of science that perform their own unique techniques and guidelines of discovering new theories.

Science shows us we evolved from bacteria. It’s showed that intelligent design is bunk. It’s made clear there is no God judging our actions. Naturally, at some point in mankind’s development, the traits of friendship, kindness, helping one another out, etc., would have formed, as it was beneficial to our survival as species (as apes and monkeys have shown around the world that have communities). It makes sense that we wouldn’t want to kill each other; evolution is about survival, and it usually helps if you’re not killing off your own species. In the evolution of our society and culture, it was obvious that it was much more productive to tell the truth to one another as opposed to lying, for obvious reasons.

If you look back in the short history of our race, it is obvious that many of the things that seem “good,” or “gut-feeling right,” are so because of our evolutionary development. We feel racism is wrong, and naturally this is helpful because we realize a great mind can come from any race or sex, as well as the realization that we are all created equal.

I’m no expert, so it would be impossible to determine where every single concept, idea, thought, and feeling came about on the evolutionary timeline, as well as what it was the side effect of in terms of changes to the brain, etc. I would assume that is what they are trying to figure out right now. But to believe anything else would require faith. There aren’t answers to everything right now, but we’re finding them. Be patient, and don’t jump to conclusions without the proper evidence and data, and I mean the kind that would be published in a peer review journal.

2

Right and wrong are dervied from the reality of our rights.

If one is behaving rightly one is respecting the rights of others.

If one is behaving wrongly one is disrespecting the rights of others.

We have, from our heart, determined the realities of rights over the millenia by being honest and truthful about our thoughts and feelings on relevant matter behaviors.

That’s how we know that murder and rape are wrong and respect for the lives of others is right.

Here is more on the subject: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152932.

Whether God or science or both are at the bottom of rights recognition is a bit moot.

What matters is the reality of rights.

3

Rights are a non-reality created by the categorical imperative.

It’s observable because all people across the globe do not have the same knowledge about rights. Rights aren’t of the same absolute level as the statement, drink water when thirsty, thus they are subjective.

4

Are we talking about inner reality, and its ideal imposure upon outer reality?

5

Wrong.

Knowledge of a right’s existence is irrelevant to its existence.

A Muslim extremist terrorist may not be “knowledgable” about his victim’s right to life, but that doesn’t mean that very real right does not exist.

You, inside your insular home, may not be knowledgable that someone’s cat is out walking in the alley, but that most certainly doesn’t mean that cat doesn’t exist. Indeed, that cat is most certainly very real to that cat’s owner.

Knowledge of something’s existence simply is not required for that thing to exist.

You may not be knowledgable of the existence of yours and others rights.

But that doesn’t mean those very real rights don’t exist.

That just means you’re ignorant of their existence.

Thinking that a lack of knowledge about something that is very real renders that something non-existent is tantamount to playing God … a behavior of the most egocentrical kind.

6

The beauty of your theory is that it isn’t science. It’s unfalsifiable, which works excellently for you, but for those who don’t want to make a faith based assumption, it doesn’t solve any mysteries.

7

d0rkyd00d

Which scientist discovered that?

8

Your religious addiction to science doesn’t serve you well, DD.

Sometimes neither religion or science is capable of discerning reality.

For instance, did you use science to have your “I am” experience.

No.

It is through that experience that you became aware of the truth of your existence.

It is from the sociologically observed and substantiated experience of one’s ontological aspect that rights begin to emerge as an evidential byproduct.

You can conjecture how much science is involved in the sociological observation and substantiation process of those truly existing rights, but that’s really irrelevant.

The bottomline remains as I have just presented it with respect to the ontological.

You seem to be caught up in a dualism between religion and science.

If all you are looking for is observable fact, science is good at that.

But you have to be a trained social scientist to make that observation in this matter.

That, you are not.

Though religion may be of no help to you here, …

… Science, in the hands of your untrained “eye”, is likewise of little use to you here.

Better is to transcend the paradigm of religion vs. science.

That dualsim focus is holding you back.

9

How, exactly, does science empirically verify the non existence of anything, especially that which is held to be empirically non- verifiable?

10

It can’t. But it can achieve the same effect by showing that the existence of something is no longer required.

Jenny-Heart, to claim that some things “Just can’t be explained” is bull-pucky and nihilist. Counterproductive.

Rights don’t exist.

Dorky, I think you’ve got the idea, but it needs perfecting. For example:

It is evolutionally true that a member of a species also competes with members of the same species. Instead of proposing some great “species-alliance” between all monkeys, why not say instead that if you kill someone, you risk having his friends kill you, which has a negative impact on your survival.

11

Required by whom? If X Exists it exists regardless of the necessity of others. Science serves as an explanatory model for observable phenomena… that’s great. I don’t see how it can function as any kind of premise in a debate about right and wrong, except that Science (if I might commit the crime of personalizing it) falsely claims itself to be value free. That, however, is a different conversation.

12

Required by humans to make correct predictions about natural phenomena. Required by humans for a functional model of the universe. I’m working with the pragmatic theory of truth here, man.

13

Zeus is correct. In the above model, if I believe in objective morals, then I can equally validate believing in God, unicorns, leprochans, the teacup revolving around the sun. X can definitely exist, but it’s not even worth mentioning if we have absolutely no evidence, no way to measure it, if it is unfalsifiable, if we cannot collect data and analyze.

It functions in the debate about right and wrong in that it tells us why the concepts of “right and wrong” even exist. If they only exist because of our evolutionary history, concepts created to simply perpetuate the existence of our species, a way to explain our strong and profound emotions with our newfound logic, then the most accurate statement you could make is that right and wrong should be redefined.

Instead of saying something is “right” or something is “wrong,” it should simply come down to what evolves us as a species. I realize that is a debate in and of itself, and a broad topic of study, but if more time was considered asking “What evolves us as a race,” and “What doesn’t evolve us as a race,” from an unbiased, unemotional standpoint, I think improvements would begin.

14

I’m sorry bub, but I disagree. Not with the general idea, just with the details. There is no race.

15

Agreed…I think.

16

In the American Declaration of Independence, the authors state that the people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

Do you think that these giants of political science history were just blowing smoke?

What makes your opinion any greater than theirs?

After all, they are giants.

And you … ???

Reality remains that rights are most certainly real.

The thread on “The Reality of Rights” presents that reality.

The English Bill of Rights presented rights then … and the American Bill of Rights presents rights now.

Many groups exist to defend human rights in the face of moral relativist abusive denial of the reality of our rights.

It seems you are on the side of the “bad guys” on this one, TZ18. :wink:

17

okay, so your argument is that because the authors of the declaration of independence argued we are born with undeniable rights, it is therefore obvious that abortion is wrong. I’m less than convinced, and I’m sure I would disagree with a lot of what those who wrote the declaration of independence believed. I’d agree with a lot too.

This once again doesn’t explain how your position isn’t faith based.

If science isn’t capable of discerning reality, then we should exist in a world much like that of Alice in Wonderland. But we don’t, and science has shown us that time and again.

I am caught up in a battle between faith based beliefs, and beliefs we can verify through factual, material evidence. This isn’t science vs. religion, this is science vs. faith.

And yes, I will side with science. I will side with the position that can trend results, that uses facts and evidence to verify its hypotheses. I don’t want to believe anybody who can’t verify anything factually, but rather just asserts that’s the way it is, just because.

18

This is circular. Note the use of ‘reality’ to begin the sentence and ‘real’ to conclude it. Nevertheless: ‘Rights’ are a human construction arbitrarily created with certain utilitarian and humanistic ideals in mind. Their purpose is ultimately to promote cohesion and structure in society; in other words, to avoid revolt and social chaos. They are ‘real’ insofar as they can, in select circumstances (e.g. a courtroom), have effect, but are in no way ‘real’ in any universal sense. This much should be obvious to anyone.

Exactly. Documents, composed by a select few individuals, are the lone source of what are called ‘rights’. They ‘exist’ only insofar as they have select application. Your ‘right to property’, for example, entails, at bottom, your ‘right’ to complain to the police if something of yours is stolen. There is nothing truly ‘objective’, ‘immutable’ or ‘inalienable’ about it, nor any other ‘right’.

19

Not if the good guys are defined as those with the correct views.

Hee hee hee. I am happy, as the strongest argument you can produce is that I should believe because somebody said so. You, pinnacle of logic, pioneer of the Santa Christ, are telling me I should agree with you because somebody says so! I, I find that amusing.

No. It is a fundamental element of a working democracy that such a statement be made and respected. Do you think America would have gotten this far if it denied rights? But that doesn’t mean that the rights exist, just that stating them and respecting them is beneficial.

20

When exactly did it do that? Evolution is a nice theory and all, but there is a reason it is still called a theory and not a law. That is becasue there are many aspects that can’t be proven such as our evolution from bacteria. It may fit well in the theory, helping to present a unified whole, but will remain scientific speculation because we have no way to prove it conclusively.

When did it do this? All theories of intelligent design are unfalsifiable.

I find it ironic that you choose to put so much faith in science.