Right & Wrong

[applepansy]

After thinking about this I decided to post the question....

Is right and wrong, subjective or objective?

(Mods, if this is in the wrong place feel free to move it. I was advised to put it in LDS Gospel Discussion but its not strictly a question about religion. However, I do acknowledge that religious issues may be brought up to back up someone's opinion.)

[Wingnut]

Is right and wrong, subjective or objective?

Yes.

[Dravin]

First you need to define right and wrong. But I'm inclined to go with Wingnut.

[applepansy]

Aw come on.

Your serious thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Dravin, there doesn't need to be a definition ... is the concept of "right and wrong" objective or subjective? Do we get to choose what is right and what is wrong (subjective?)

[Dravin]

The problem Apple is if you just leave it at that...

I got the wrong burger at McDonald's, I should have gone for the Big Mac.

Tossing a hand grenade into a hospital nursery full of babies and absent any kind of threat to yourself or others is wrong.

So, if I say right and wrong are objective, does that mean burger choice is not subjective? There is an objectively right burger for me to order independent of my take on it? If I say it is subjective does that mean that tossing hand grenades into nurseries is not wrong based on individual's takes on it? For one person it is wrong, but for another it is right?

I think a lot of people would be inclined to say the latter is objectively wrong, but if they say that with the dichotomy you've set up, they are also saying there is objectively a wrong and right lipstick color for you independent of what you or anyone else thinks about that color.

It's kinda like asking if killing is wrong.

Murder? Most would say yes.

Self-Defense? Fewer would say yes.

Eating living things to sustain your life? If we limit it to plants I doubt anyone would say yes.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Dravin

[applepansy]

thank you Dravin. I appreciate your thoughts.

Another question then..... Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

[Still_Small_Voice]

I think if you stay with the following ten points you will be alright:

• 1. Love God and our neighbors.
• 2. Keep the commandments.
• 3. Repent of our wrongdoings.
• 4. Search out our kindred dead and receive the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.
• 5. Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.
• 6. Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.
• 7. Have family and individual prayers every day.
• 8. Teach the gospel to others by word and example.
• 9. Study the scriptures.
• 10. Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I think right and wrong are absolute, but our understanding of it is what becomes subjective or objective. If we are to have any faith in God, the gospel, Jesus Christ, or any other theological belief, we first have to accept that right and wrong are constant. If not, then we cannot place faith in any system of beliefs, due to the shifting nature of right and wrong.

Any religion promising salvation for mankind must have at its base a solid foundation of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil. Without these, there is no way to build a system of beliefs durable enough to withstand the changing fashions and fads of human society.

[Guest]

I guess you're asking about morality?

As LDS members we hold that morality is absolute. It is not up to you or me or society. It is what God says it is as revealed to His prophets, seers, and revelators.

For non-LDS members, morality is ambiguous. There are as many different positions on what is moral as there are sands on the beach. This is because, even with the Light of Christ present with every human being (Light of Christ is what makes morality normative - or you can say non-lds calls it normative morality, lds calls it light of Christ), humans are born with free agency, therefore, will have to really study to be able to apply reason to act on conscience.

[Gwen]

most christians i think would say god defines right and wrong. however the country you live in also defines right and wrong with it's laws.

i think in the end, what we actually choose to do, right and wrong are defined by our spirit, what we inherently know deep down inside. (which yes can change; god talks about needing a change of heart, there are some ppl out there that really are just evil)

i recall yrs ago in a sociology class i took we discussed how every civilization had some form of rules, even if just unwritten social norms they followed. every culture has some of those in common. all of them had some kind of "rules" in regards to stealing and killing. there were others but mostly i just remember thinking "wow, it's the basics, almost all the commandments laid out plain and simple" even those that had no "christian" influence knew certain things just aren't right. our spirits know.

[Wingnut]

Yes.

Aw come on.

Your serious thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Dravin, there doesn't need to be a definition ... is the concept of "right and wrong" objective or subjective? Do we get to choose what is right and what is wrong (subjective?)

That is my serious thought on the matter. I also think Dravin is right -- a definition is required. Are you talking about the words at face value, or are you speaking morally? Are you speaking of good and evil? Righteous and wicked? Or just right and wrong? Dravin gave good examples of very subjective right vs. wrong situations.

[applepansy]

I think right and wrong are absolute, but our understanding of it is what becomes subjective or objective. If we are to have any faith in God, the gospel, Jesus Christ, or any other theological belief, we first have to accept that right and wrong are constant. If not, then we cannot place faith in any system of beliefs, due to the shifting nature of right and wrong.

Any religion promising salvation for mankind must have at its base a solid foundation of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil. Without these, there is no way to build a system of beliefs durable enough to withstand the changing fashions and fads of human society.

Thank you. I appreciate your well thought out post.

I agree that the concepts of right and wrong must be basic concepts in religion. Doesn't the concepts of right and wrong exist outside of religion?

Successful societies in history had a concept of right and wrong. If a society doesn't agree on basic rules (right and wrong) then they cannot be successful. Does anyone agree?

[applepansy]

I guess you're asking about morality?

As LDS members we hold that morality is absolute. It is not up to you or me or society. It is what God says it is as revealed to His prophets, seers, and revelators.

For non-LDS members, morality is ambiguous. There are as many different positions on what is moral as there are sands on the beach. This is because, even with the Light of Christ present with every human being (Light of Christ is what makes morality normative - or you can say non-lds calls it normative morality, lds calls it light of Christ), humans are born with free agency, therefore, will have to really study to be able to apply reason to act on conscience.

Anatess, thank you for your thoughts.

Are basic right and wrong decisions always moral? Lets use Dravin's hamburger choice. Is choosing a Big Mac over another sandwich a moral choice? Of course not unless you choose to see killing the animal a moral decision, therefore eating the hamburger becomes a moral decision....whether you choose to make it right or wrong. Therefore subjective.

No, I'm not asking about morality. However that begs another question, just because we consider God's commandments right, does that make them moral? We can add that to this discussion if necesssary to understanding.

[applepansy]

most christians i think would say god defines right and wrong. however the country you live in also defines right and wrong with it's laws.

i think in the end, what we actually choose to do, right and wrong are defined by our spirit, what we inherently know deep down inside. (which yes can change; god talks about needing a change of heart, there are some ppl out there that really are just evil)

i recall yrs ago in a sociology class i took we discussed how every civilization had some form of rules, even if just unwritten social norms they followed. every culture has some of those in common. all of them had some kind of "rules" in regards to stealing and killing. there were others but mostly i just remember thinking "wow, it's the basics, almost all the commandments laid out plain and simple" even those that had no "christian" influence knew certain things just aren't right. our spirits know.

Thank you Gwen!!!

I agree. We know in our Spirits a basic right and wrong. My husband used the idea of nudity. Even societies (indiginous trides in South Amerian) who have no worldly influence undertand nudity. They all have developed some type of clothing. This is neither a right or wrong decision, or moral, its just something in our spiritual coding that tells us we need to put somethng on.

Some would argue that the clothing is for comfort or protection. I'll agree...it can be both. But our instinct to have some sort of clothing comes from something deeper.

[applepansy]

That is my serious thought on the matter. I also think Dravin is right -- a definition is required. Are you talking about the words at face value, or are you speaking morally? Are you speaking of good and evil? Righteous and wicked? Or just right and wrong? Dravin gave good examples of very subjective right vs. wrong situations.

Just right and wrong.

[applepansy]

I understand the difficulty with answering my original question. I've been struggling with this question for several weeks.

What brought me to this question is an observation. Repeatedly, online and offline, in social groups, in church, at the grocery store, casual interactons.... in all aspects of my life.... I run into basically good people who seem to have no understanding of basic right and wrong. I've even had a small discussion with LDS members on this concept and found a lack of understanding of basic right and wrong.

I'm trying to understand. 1. why? and 2. How can I personally promote an understanding of this basic concept. OR Has Satan so muddied the waters that there can no longer be understanding?

A priniciple is something that just is. I believe the concept of Right and Wrong to be such a prinicple.

[Dravin]

How can I personally promote an understanding of this basic concept.

Defining it instead of purposely keeping your understanding nebulous might help. And if you feel you can't adequately define it, why are you surprised that others can't?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Dravin

[marts1]

Some groups of people have based right and wrong by how much money or increase they can obtain. These civilizations tend to persecute the poor and think they are wrong because of thier poverty. There are many people like that in todays society.

[Wingnut]

Just right and wrong.

Then I stand by my original answer: Yes. And I back up Dravin in establishing a need for a definition before being able to say whether right and wrong are subjective or objective.

[Wisc]

Evil is a point of view. Nobody does something because they think they're evil; they do it because they think they're Right!

A few people have mentioned that we must have a definition of what good and evil / right and wrong is. I say we must go one step further. We must decide who's definition of right and wrong is the correct one. I say we go with who ever knows the most and who will be the one making judgement on what is right and wrong. And who knows more than God? Who is like unto Him? And who will judge God? Nobody. So if He knows the most and is a judge who answers to no one, I say we use His definition of right and wrong.

[applepansy]

Defining it instead of purposely keeping your understanding nebulous might help. And if you feel you can't adequately define it, why are you surprised that others can't?

I'm not surprised Dravin. I'm searching for understanding and I was hoping I would find help here. I guess you could say I'm searching for the definition.

After further pondering and contemplation, after more discussion (I truly appreciate the thoughts everyone has posted)...I've come to a conclusion of sorts:

The principal of right and wrong is Objective. How we as individuals and society apply this principle is Subjective.

Is my conclusion flawed?

Edited March 7, 2010 by applepansy

[Dravin]

Not knowing exactly what you mean by right and wrong we can't really judge if your conclusion is valid.

It's like saying it is objective. It may very well be, it may very well not be. Until we know what it is we're up a creak without a paddle. It's like asking if it is round.

Until you separate the idea of moral/amoral and pleasing/unpleasing to God with, "I wish I'd gotten the carrots instead." or "your short answer on the Poli-Sci test was incorrect" it's a muddled mess. You don't have to pull out a OED style definition of what you mean, but at least telling us in what sense you mean right and wrong would help immensely with knowing what kinda of right and wrong you are looking to understand more about. Wingnut has already asked this of you.

P.S. I'm aware I'm probably coming across as pedantic. :)

Edited March 7, 2010 by Dravin

[applepansy]

Let me try again. The principle or concept of right and wrong in my mind is pretty basic. I'm talking about the concept of opposites.

Its the basis of choice. If there isn't opposites there can't be choice...or diagreement. Weren't we sent here to this earth to choose? To exercise our agency? If the answer is yes, then what are we choosing between? Sometimes its right and wrong or opposites, but sometimes its more vague. Sometimes we have to choose which is the best of two rights. However, underlying all that...is a principle. I'm searching for that principle.

I appreciate your replies. Your thoughts have helped me clarify.

Thank you.

[Dravin]

One can choose between things that aren't opposites though. Is a Big Mac the opposite of a Big and Tasty? Utah Valley University the opposite ofUniversity of Utah? Is a Honda the opposite of a Civic? An iPhone the opposite of a Nexus? Pumpernickel the opposite of rye? I can choose to say Hi instead of Hello. Is "hi" the opposite of "hello?"

I know the scriptures talk about how morally, we can't choose between good and evil if we aren't presented with both. And I'm more then willing to say good and evil are opposites. But not all choices are moral choices, for example those above. Maybe if we soften it (so it can include a non macro moral scenario the scriptures are talking about) to be difference?

[FunkyTown]

The best argument against relativistic morality is by Benito Mussolini.

He said:

Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. —Benito Mussolini

Basically, if someone argues that there is no objective morality, they can't complain if someone is an absolute monster when they get power. Quite simply: If all morality is subjective, then the person with the most power is by necessity correct in his morality because he can enforce that morality on anyone.

That's simply not the truth. There is a subjective truth; One that most can feel and understand.