Right or Wrong? Why Debating is all that Matters.

[FuBai]

Often you will see or hear of something that you know is wrong. It can be as obviously wrong as murder, or more complicated, like a well intentioned lie, but you will see it and you will judge it, almost instantly. Then someone else comes along and, seeing the exact same event, says 'That was right.' You may then argue with him - how could he possibly think that was right! The debate rages until, perhaps, you win and the other man leaves corrected. Or he wins, and you walk away wondering how you could have been so foolish. Which ever way one of you has been convinced to accept something that you had rejected as being the case, and the sole thing that persuaded you was the other man's argument. There was nothing more objective that convinced you than his rhetoric.

The thing about this is that any action is defendable, any action justifiable, from lying to genocide, all can be explained and justified. Above and beyond the heat of debate there is no objective value of "rightness" to which we can appeal, no superlative value against which we can measure the correctness of what we do. We may feel that there are, that what ever moral precepts we were taught at birth point us towards "rightness" but we cannot hope to justify them without introducing religion. There are atheists who claim that we can uphold morality for moral reasons without God, but these arguments tend to be flawed because they have nothing to appeal to to make morality any more than simple opinion. Ask such an atheist if murder is wrong. He will probably say yes. Then ask him why and, if he responds ask why again and again. No matter how far the reasons go back they will never be founded on anything more than opinion. Why is it an intrinsically wrong thing to kill every one? That's hard for an atheist to answer because there is no non-material value to appeal to. If you are having problems grasping this notion please don't post explaining why murder is wrong, just ask yourself why, and then ask why your reasons are of moral significance and so on. This is a pretty logical point. However, feel free to post some non-religious grounding for morality if you can come up with one (but don't forget to ask why it works).

So, once we establish that right or wrong are simply differences of opinion then we have a problem, especially if we pretend that we are legislators, in that what course of action do we take? You see the majority have not understood that right or wrong are not fixed values and only exist, if they can be said to exist at all, in relation to each other, and that relationship is described only by the individual's psyche and upbringing. So then, how do we decide what to do? It is decided, in practicality, solely by argument. That is all that shapes our policy, all that guides our lives and all that dictates our actions. Whether or not an action is correct or incorrect is decided by arguments - they can be sweeping political arguments such as those of drug legitimisation or they can be finite moral arguments such as whether human life is sacred. They inform each other, they are irrevocably intertwined but, in the end, the final summation, all they are is arguments.

Were we to decide that murder was right, to what could the atheist appeal to try and show that it was wrong? He could argue that everyone may well be murdered, but the people could just as well ask him "why is that a bad thing", he may reply "Because then you will be dead", and they say "why is that a bad thing?". You see almost all of our moral philosophy is based on a fundamental assumption that x is the case. It is an assumption that can never be proven.

So everything is in the debate and the argument. Which ever argument wins (and by win I mean meets popular approval) decides what is right and what is wrong. That's the reason debating is so important, because that's all our moral philosophy is. It's why persuasion and guile are as important as facts and intelligence.

I'm sure these thought have been thought before by greater minds, but I leave them here for you to examine and contemplate. I probably have not put it as well as I wanted to and may well have made some mistakes, for which I apologise.

[everytingirie]

Very interesting read. Swim will have to read it again and contribute more in a bit.

Originally Posted by FuBai

Were we to decide that murder was right, to what could the atheist appeal to try and show that it was wrong?

This brings up a very interesting point. The Southern bible-belt state in which swim resides does not allow any atheists (or non-believer[some seem to find atheist misleading sometimes]) to serve on a jury in a trial or to hold a public office.

[The state] is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the [state] Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

There is legislation being presented now to change this unjust law. However, it almost wouldn't surprise swim if the legislation doesn't pass. The area is ridiculously conservative.

The resolution itself: HJR [xxxx]: AMENDING THE [state] CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AN ATHEIST HOLDING ANY OFFICE IN THE CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE OF [state] OR TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN ANY COURT.

Swim will get back to the point of swiy epiphany in a bit, as he said. He just couldn't bring himself to leave this unaddressed.

[Nycholai]

A good non-theological base to construct your morals on is 'do unto others what you would have them done to you" (This is religiously based, however, it does not involve god directly). You would not like to be killed, and as such, others most probably do not want to be killed as well. This means that you would find it wrong to be done to you so it must also be wrong to do to others as they, like you, would not like it done to themselves.

Nycholai added 1 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Nycholai

A good non-theological base to construct your morals on is 'do unto others what you would have them done to you" (This is religiously based, however, it does not involve god directly). You would not like to be killed, and as such, others most probably do not want to be killed as well. This means that you would find it wrong to be done to you so it must also be wrong to do to others as they, like you, would not like it done to themselves.

Suicidal people would be the one exception to this case.

[Pringles]

I was going to use words like caring & decency but it could be argued that they are opinions too i guess. It can be beneficial to be nice to each other, we have limited resources. The tragedy of the commons describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by Nycholai

A good non-theological base to construct your morals on is 'do unto others what you would have them done to you" (This is religiously based, however, it does not involve god directly).

Hold on just a second now. Following that mantra leaves the door open for all sorts of prying, interference and meddling to the point where you have people entirely running the lives of others under their own subjective convictions. I much prefer "do NOT do onto others as you would not have them done to you". Of course this invites its own problems e.g. you might not be compelled to pull someone out of a burning car; but overall, I feel it's safer than the basic evangelical Christian mentality of sticking your nose in where it doesn't always belong.

But back to FuBai's original point. I agree that nothing is objectively right. It's all a matter of opinion. But when it comes to something like murder, it's quite simple. Murder someone and you're likely to get caught which results in extended prison time or even execution. Seems like a pretty good incentive not to murder to me (that any due to the fact that I have no motivation to murder). I don't exactly see how atheism plays into all of this however. People believe many things. A deist may just as easily reach the same conclusions. A God-fearing devout Christian may find a way of justifying murder as they undoubtedly do. That's where law comes in. And yes, laws in themselves aren't perfect. They can be chopped and changed all the time but it appears to be the best system we have right now, when it comes to dealing with violent criminals (note: 'violent' criminals, I'm not talking about jay-walking here).

As for this point about non-material value. An active human body has material value. A dead human body doesn't. Would you prefer your flat-screen HD-TV operating or would you like it smashed into tiny little bits?

[Nycholai]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Hold on just a second now. Following that mantra leaves the door open for all sorts of prying, interference and meddling to the point where you have people entirely running the lives of others under their own subjective convictions. I much prefer "do NOT do onto others as you would not have them done to you". Of course this invites its own problems e.g. you might not be compelled to pull someone out of a burning car; but overall, I feel it's safer than the basic evangelical Christian mentality of sticking your nose in where it doesn't always belong.

I am just wondering what kind of prying, interference, and meddling you are referring to ... examples?