Is there a definitive way that we can determine or define 'right' and 'wrong', or is there only some form of relativism?

They seem to be abstract man made concepts, yet even a child can tell when they've done 'wrong'. It seems almost everyone has an instinctual sense of basic morality, although whether it is from a 'God' or from millions of years of evolution still perplexes me.

There is no objective code of right and wrong. Such things have been proposed (the Categorical Imperative etc.), but none will ever be universally accepted. One of the simplest, most effective answers to the problem of evil is just this: that evil is subjective. For example, Hitler is usually considered evil, and the things he did wrong. At the time, however, his followers believed that he could do no wrong. quote:They seem to be abstract man made concepts, yet even a child can tell when they've done 'wrong'. It seems almost everyone has an instinctual sense of basic morality, although whether it is from a 'God' or from millions of years of evolution still perplexes me. I disagree with you there. I don't think there is an innate morality in us. If a child were raised completely amorally, It seems to me unlikely that the concept of right and wrong would exist in the mind of the child.

EDIT: Fixed quote.

[This message has been edited by I am Weasel (edited 01-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

There is no objective code of right and wrong. Such things have been proposed (the Categorical Imperative etc.), but none will ever be universally accepted. One of the simplest, most effective answers to the problem of evil is just this: that evil is subjective.

So, if evil is subjective, then something that I define as evil may be considered/defined as ok or even good by another person. If this is so, which of us is right? Both? Neither?

quote:I don't think there is an innate morality in us. If a child were raised completely amorally, It seems to me unlikely that the concept of right and wrong would exist in the mind of the child.

So, if the child requires training to reach that amoral state, does that not mean that the training is going against an inward tendancy or condition? Does that mean that there is already present a natural instinct or conscience?

quote:So, if evil is subjective, then something that I define as evil may be considered/defined as ok or even good by another person. If this is so, which of us is right? Both? Neither? You're missing the point. Subjectivity means that neither can be universally right (that would be objective). They can only judge for themselves. quote:So, if the child requires training to reach that amoral state, does that not mean that the training is going against an inward tendancy or condition? Does that mean that there is already present a natural instinct or conscience? What I meant was not that there is any special training involved, rather that any notion of morality is simply absent from their upbringing. We are all trained to reach a moral state.

I personally think that there is no right or wrong, only morals and perspectives.

Weren't the concepts of right and wrong created by the Sumerians somewhere circa 3000-2000 years b.c.?

It's in the perception of society, they don't really exist.

You guys don't see the forest for the trees.

Right - helps society

Wrong - hurts society

That's all it is.

Who thinks this belongs in Humanities?

Cheers,

Lost