If I vote Yes, and there is right and wrong, then I am right. And if there is actually no right and wrong, I am still not wrong.
If I vote No, and the is actually right and wrong, then I am wrong. And if there isn't, even then, I still can't be right.
The only answer that makes any sense is Yes, even if it is wrong.
Yes, of course there is such a thing as right and wrong. They are labels, created by humans, to help us navigate the world. What a society labels good or bad shows what it values and what it abhors. While it is true that there no objective, absolute standards by which to judge right and wrong, that is irrelevant. Right and wrong exist as social conventions, regardless if they are tied to anything absolute.
There is a way something can be right and wrong, it is called being a republican. Republicans, right winged nut jobs, and their political views, talk about nothing but wrong. So remember, if someone asks you if there is such thing as right and wrong, its called being a republican.
Well just ask everyone that responded NO. They all believe their particular answer is right and mine is wrong. But, if they said there is "no such thing as right and wrong" then they are making a definitive/absolute statement about a concept that they claim is not absolute... Interesting dilemma.
Right is doing something that increases the fitness of the individual and society as a whole. It increases the chance of survival and evolution of the species. For example, it's right to reuse plastic utensils if they are not so dirty instead of throwing them out because it decreases the pollution of our environment. It's wrong to throw it out. Is it good to reuse utensils? Some may say yes, others may say it's bad because of their own subjective ideas about it. It's also wrong to engage in homosexual practices but some say it's good and others say it's bad. What's good and bad is subjective, what's good to someone maybe bad to someone else. I may think it's good to kill someone, but obviously most people think it's bad. Good/bad is based on culture. If everyone did the right thing, then everyone would be in tune with the laws that govern the Universe and there would be little to no suffering among every living thing.
In my own personal experience my parents always taught me that right and wrong can be partially determined within our belief system. In my religion there are some things that if you do it, it is considered as a wrong like adultery, cheating, lying etc. Even though this seems logical from my point of view it can vary for somebody else’s view. If you confront somebody who has a family starving and their only escape route is to steal food then they are going to take that opportunity. They are going to think that leaving their family starving is wrong for them and they are right. In society we can constantly flip the table and right and wrong will constantly change depending on the time and situation of the problem. Despite all of this I have a personal opinion that if you commit an action it shouldn’t actually harm somebody. If I choose to fight somebody because they said something about my friend, I find this as the wrong thing to do. I don’t really care what anybody does to me, but whatever they do I believe that it shouldn’t lead to violence to harm that person. That’s just the ethics that I have been raised on.
If you go back to all civilizations I am aware of, you will find in their society a belief in a greater being than themselves. If you remove this belief, then everyone will do what is right in their own eyes, and you have anarchy. But unfortunately that is what I am seeing right now in the United States. The same standards that were applied to same sex marriage, were used to set the laws against pedophiles, murder, rape, animal sex, incest. There are so many other reasons I believe there is a right and wrong. This is just the start.
Concepts, like matter, can neither be created, not destroyed. Saying humans invented good and bad ( or right and wrong) implies we implicitly have the power to cause ideas to exist. If this were true, we would be able to imagine a color that we've never seen. Nay, concepts exist in a metaphysical way, such is Plato's theory of The Forms.
For us to acknowledge the existence of good or bad, even if we disagree on what they actually are, we must acknowledge that we are merely grazing a shadow of what is true to be right and wrong. In a pragmatic sense, there is no such thing as good and bad, because finding out what they are is automatically and implicitly tainted by our human perceptions, as the answer lies in the metaphysical realm, outside of anything we can ever understand. The answer is certainly absurd, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And to reiterate, they must exist, for we can think them.
I'm assuming you mean right and wrong in an ethical sense, and I wholeheartedly agree. Ethics has to do with interactions, with how one's actions affect the experiences of others, and each interaction between people has some objective characteristics that we can use to judge a person's actions in accordance with meaningful, non-arbitrary standards (e.G. Causing unjustified harm to another conscious being is wrong). Objective ethical principles follow from the fact that we live in an objectively real physical universe populated by conscious beings whose actions have predictable consequences.
Yes there is something known as right or wrong. Lets say for example a rape case this is certain that it is wrong . Is there any point which can say that the rape case are right? I know no one will have the answer for it because it is WRONG.
Morality (what is right or wrong) is obviously a human construction. We can calculate science, maths, logic; we cannot calculate right and wrong. We cannot use logic to prove it is wrong to take innocent life, for instance; you may say the body you are harming is not yours, that you do not have consent to kill the person, but what requires you to have consent? What universal law says you even own your own body? None.
With that said, we use right and wrong to allow us to survive in society; it benefits us all if we lock away murderers and help those in need. Just because objective right and wrong does not exist, does not mean we should go around pillaging and raping; we would all rather make our own rules to live by and be happy (a utilitarian view) than live in anarchy, and spend our lives defending our houses with shotguns.
Just look at the stars and ask yourself if there is a right or a wrong. We are so insignificant to the universe, that it doesn't matter. Therefore, there is no right or wrong in the context of the universe. Civilization however, needs moral beliefs in order to survive, otherwise we'd all be hurting and killing others to survive.
Peoples opinion does not simply mean that they're based on facts, opinions are very dangerous things, because they're not based on facts. Everything is based on our current knowledge and experiences, and they both are limited, what i'm trying to point out here is that, life is full of lessons that we have to accept and learn, we have to accept what is fact and move along and start evolving, or else we will end up being in conflicts endlessly as we still are up to this day.
Unless there is some all powerful deity to be the arbiter of right and wrong then there is no objective right and wrong and even if something that powerful existed it probably would not care what we mere mortals did anyway. It is just something people believe exists because of their own personal codes of conduct.
If there was, then why are we debating about whether or not there is? If there was a right and wrong, wouldn't we all agree on it and not have various opinions on the matter? Whatever one person believes to be "right" or "wrong", another person may not. So there isn't a clear definition for either.
What's right to one is wrong to another. Two opposite ends of a spectrum are only defined by their relation to the other; and vice versa.
"Truth is absolute; truth telling, and truth hearing, relative." Human compulsion to assign labels to these ambiguous terms is all that we can rely on- and these labels are constantly in motion.
Example: People in USA think that Osama bin laden is a terrorist but according to him and his misinterpretation of the holy quran, he is right.
Another one: Police thinks that killing a man is a crime but when a man is killed, the reason why the killer is killed him/her matters. When the killer is just doing it because his/her family is in danger then I personally think it is right.
While there is such a thing of a sense of right and wrong, they are simply superficial and aesthetic, they are not objective and written in stone for all people and all times. People's views and opinions change, for an obvious example, look at the history of slavery around the world.
The way in which an individual views the world around them and the system of ethics that govern such a world is particular to the individual. What I mean is that the morals that influence one persons actions are different (if not similar) to someone else's.
However there are morals/ethics that are in essence similar for a majority of people and it is because of this majority that parts of society such as laws are created. The accepted majority is what is therefore deemed as 'right' while opposing opinions is therefore 'wrong'. This in turn varies from community to community and culture to culture. So, if what is deemed as 'right' is merely the most popular of opinion and this popular opinion differs in each society, then isn't 'right' just another word for the winning opinion. Right and wrong do not exist, as this opinion constantly changes over time.
It is impossible to tell someone that their opinion/action/beliefs are wrong just simply because they do not follow the same principles and guidelines as yourself.
There are two popular stances for objective morality: religion and Ethical value assignment.
Religion creates their stances for objective based on the beliefs and tenets of its beliefs. By nature these are subjective in that people came up with the laws of each religion. However if religions claim that these laws were handed, given, written, etc by God, entities, spirits, etc... To them, the religion makes two assumptions:
1) That the supernatural being is morally perfect
2) That the rules made by the supernatural being are objective
These assumptions, without evidence, can not be used in an argument. Because of the unverifiable nature of these assumptions, religion can not give us a definite objective morality.
Ethical value is an idea that is becoming popular among philosophers and atheists alike; After all this gives atheists a moral code with which to battle religion's battering of atheist ethics. Ethical value states that humans by way of nature, psychology, and biology have needs that must be met. These needs are organized hierarchically: ex. Water and food needs must be met before a person focuses on love and companionship. These ideals are based on values given to each variable within the context of the time and happenings when the decision or action is made. Unfortunately the assignment of values to each variable is by nature subjective. Any two people could assign the values of the variables different ways. Also this belief system revolves solely around the human condition. This doctrine states that people need to make the decisions that advance humans as a species. If advancing the human condition means slaughtering an entire rival species or even a species that lives in the same area is it still moral? To this idea and its followers yes. To most everyone else no. Morals are always subjective simply because there are no external signs of morals. Morals exist only within cultures and individuals.