Right or wrong is a matter of interpritation and judgment. Our different experiences and environments cause us to see things differently. IE im pretty sure Binladden (excuse my spelling) thinks he did the right thing. so who decides whos right or wrong?
the best thing i can come up with is justice. lets say justice is the preservation and protection of whats in the best intrest of the human race. instead of asking your self 'did i do the right thing?' ask your self 'is what im doing just?'
once you put justice in the equazion, its no longer about you or me, but us, and the relitive relationship we have with humankind.
IE we dont hit woman because...
the same reason we dont hit cows or mares(no offence ment i have nothing but the utmost respect for woman)
because it lessens the flow of milk, and can hurt reproduction which is detremental to the human race.
thoughts any one?
i think the only way to validate what you believe is to chalange it, so feel free to counter my argument ( :

Right and wrong only exist, if you accept the existence of God. Otherwise, you are talking "socially advantageous" vs "socially disadvantageous". For something to be "right", it would have to always be right in every situation. Otherwise, it's simply advantageous for that moment or situation.

I'm certain that nobody under Bin Ladin's command would want to hurt an innocent person...but their definition of an innocent person would be wildly different from your definition.

That's the problem with basing judgements of right and wrong on humanistic morality. Humanistic morality boils down to relativism, which is a slippery slope.

I'm a bit confused concerning your above statements. First you speak to the issues of Bin Laden's followers, and then you say, "That's the problem with basing judgments of right and wrong on humanistic morality"

But the followers of Bin Laden believed that they were serving God. It was a highly religious act in the minds of those men. So they weren't basing their judgments of right and wrong on humanistic morality, they thought they were doing the 'absolute righteous thing' in the name of God.

In fact, if we look at just those Abrahamic religions alone we see quite a bit of 'religious relativism'. The Jews, the Muslims, the Catholics, and the many different denominations of Protestantism all believe that God wants something different. So here we have basically "one religion" (or at least a bunch of fragmented religions that were sparked by a belief in a single monotheistic jealous Godhead), all turned against each other.

So it seems to me that basing judgments on religious beliefs is every bit of a 'slippery slope' as basing them on anything else.

Even religions that were all born from the same regional mythology disagree vehemently on what's 'right or wrong'. And we didn't even need to bring in religions from other parts of the world which have even different ideas yet of what the gods supposedly expect from us.

So how would a belief in a God be any less of a 'slippery slope'?

It would only appear that way to the individual believers. Everyone thinks that their religion holds the absolute truth, but no two religions agree on what that absolute truth is. In fact, believers within a single religion often disagree with each other on how to intepret their own religious doctrines.

So who's "truth" would be absolute? We can't say "God's truth". because no two religious people can even agree on what "God's truth" even is. And that often holds even for people who are members of the very same religion. They disagree among themselves on precisely what they believe that God expects from them.

How about we check all religions and find the underlying moral code?

Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Adultery is wrong. Etc

Basically seven of the 10 commandments are agreed upon by every religion that I am aware of. At the very least: Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus. But some people make exceptions to their moral code. For instance...some radical Muslims claim that they would never hurt an innocent person, but that Kuffir (infidels) are never innocent. So they can excuse the murder of a non-Muslim child, because the child wasn't an innocent. Or during the inquisition, some Christians decided that the commandments didn't apply to witch and other non-Christians.

Actually if you take away the first 3 or 4 commandments that insist on worshiping the Biblical God almost any person off the street would agree to the rest, even atheists.

The Wicca reded simply states, "Do as ye will, but harm none".

That pretty much covers the 10 commandments too, save for the first 3 or 4 that demand that only the God of Moses be worshipped.

I think this simple shows that the 10 Commandments are basically just human ethics in general for the most part. Clearly there are criminals who have very poor ethics, but criminals exist in all walks of life and in the congregations of all religions.



Well, that's my point. Religious doctrines that are as complex as the Torah, Quran, and Bible leave open an entire can of worms of interpretations.

Many Christians prefer to sweep the Old Testament under the carpet and go solely by the teachings of the New Testament. But even Jesus is quoted as having said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Well a "jot and tittle" are a reference to written words. It's assumed here that Jesus was refering to the Torah (or Biblical Old Testament). In fact, it's hard to know what doctuments Jesus might have even been referring to (if he even actually said these words that Matthew claims that he said).

None the less, these words are powerful in that they give every Christian the freedom to go back and root through the "Old Testament" for the laws of God. After all, this is precisely what Jesus as said according to Matthew.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

So any Christain can easily use the Holy Bible as an excuse to murder heathens and claim that they are only following the directives of God.

Nowhere, that I am aware of, do any of the gospels have Jesus denouncing the murdering of heathens. And with his proclamation that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law, then any Christian can easily argue that according to the Holy Bible it's the duty of any Christian to murder heathens just as the God of the Old Testament had commanded them to do.

You could argue against this 'interpretation' I'm sure. But that's missing the point isn't it? If you have to argue for a particular interpretation of "God's Word" then we're right back on a "slippery slope" again.

Why should any human need to ask another human how to interpret God's word? This could only imply that some humans have higher moral standards than others.

But if you already need to be a highly moral person in order to "properly interpret" God's word, that would negate the very need to even have a document that claims to be the word of God.

I could preach my own personal ethics and my preachings would be morally superior to even the teachings of Jesus. How so? Well, just take everything good that Jesus taught and apply it to animals and nature as well as humans. Treat all of creation as you wish to be treated yourself.

So here we have an example of a mere mortal man who has higher morals than God. At least in principle, if not in practice.

I think the bottom line with the Mediterranean doctrines is that the God of those doctrines was indeed a highly violent God who always solved his problems via violence and murder.

This is the God who led the people from slavery, gave them the 10 commandments (which includes the commandment that thou shalt not kill), and then led them to the "Promised Land" where he commanded them to murder every man, woman, child, and baby that were living on that land.

So clearly this is an example where God was basically saying, through his actions: "By the way, when I said thou shalt not kill, I never meant for that to apply to heathens".

That's a prefectly legit interpretation, IMHO.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why modern day Christians shouldn't be actively murdering all non-Christians just like the Crusadered believed to be the will of God.

Not that I support that interpretation. I personally feel that it's obvious that the Mediterranean God named "Yahweh" was nothing more than a bigoted myth created by the men of that region to give them the freedom to murder people as 'heathens' in the name of God.

They also made this God into a "male" and held his male-chauvinistic attitude over their women by writing these things into their doctrine.

But the bottom line is that religious doctrines, when used to justify morality, can indeed be used to support murder, and that even includes the Christian versions of the Mediterranean mythology.

It's a "slippery slope" all the way.

Agreed, but in order to elaborate slightly...

Right and wrong are moral descriptions which are filtered through the personal sense of ought given by a subject to the content of a specific experience or an idea.



Just for whom, and measured with whose rod?

Before one can differentiate between what is 'right or wrong' and what is 'just', there must be some specific considerations(qualifiers) which necessitate that distinction.



Not that I disagree with the possible suggested effects for the actions in this example, but is that reason given truly an accurate decription of why one doesn't hit women?



Including 'justice' into an equation of morality does nothing more or less than simply using right or wrong, because both of those necessarily include one's own individual idea of what is just. I mean the element of being 'just' is automatically included in what one deems as right.

How does focusing on what constitutes 'justice' avoid the problem inherent within morality? It is just(no pun intended) another product of the personal sense of ought.

I think just implies relation to others only. I think right and wrong implies relation to a higher code. For instance, it may be JUST for simon cowell to tell someone they sing worse than anyone on the planet( if that is his honest opinion,,how could it be unjust to speak it?), but whether it is the RIGHT thing is something else altogether.

I am of the belief that right and wrong have alot of middle ground between them which makes them hard to decipher on times. Is it right to love whom you chose,,of course. Is it right to express that love sexually if that person is married,,,probably not. People justify alot of things with that middle ground which is where most of the diagreement between right and wrong comes in. We all want the things we WANT to do to be right and most of us can find some way to justify them. But, for me, God is the judge and we will only truly know when we come in front of him. But we can TRY to use his word as a guide.

The true question I think is where do your beleifs come from and how your interpret them...It is also important to remember if you are US resident that belief in God is want founded this great country....Thus "IN GOD WE TRUST"

Right and wrong have nothing to do with a God or no God at all .
They have to do with our inner conscience and the way we see things in general . Pacifism and humanism are two noble and brave thoughts who do not rely on a God .G.W. Bush killed and destroyed millions of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and other goals but he sees himself as doing .....GOOD...!!!!.

Depends on what axioms one bases his opinions, and therefore philosophy, on. As a libertarian (small l) I believe in the self-ownership and non-aggression axioms, for example. In your example of hitting a woman, for example, this is wrong because you would be violating her property (herself) and aggressing against her.

The parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were viewed as outcasts and blasphemers by the Jews, but Jesus said that one of them that helped a Jew was a true neighbor and the Jew's who refused to help were not their neighbors. Jesus was breaking down walls, showing that all people of all religions were his followers neighbors. Thus making it clear that there are no enemies to Christianity. Paul expounded on this by saying "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." While you see "no reason whatsoever" those who have studied the New Testament see many reasons why such actions would be wrong according to Christian philosophy. That's ignoring the fact that when God commanded the Israelites to kill groups of people, those were specific commands given to specific people and applied only to those specific circumstances.

You have confused the issue by including the crusades. The crusades were originally a response to Jihad. The time period called the "Dark Ages" gets their name from the lack of documentary evidence of what happened during that time. What we do know is that wave after wave of Muslim invaders enter into Europe and conquered land. Eventually, the Christians rallied and tried to take back their land. While they didn't succeed in the Middle East, they did manage to take back most of Europe.

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard and Aristotle would disagree, FWIW.

Where did your conscience come from?

I believe that they would be wrong in such a disagreement.

What is right and wrong based on if there is no underlying moral law established by God?

Evolution? If so, then there is no right or wrong, simply what is right / wrong at this point in evolution.

Society? If so then there is no right or wrong, simply what is right or wrong for this society.

If right and wrong isn't based on an underlying moral code that exists separate from humanity and society, then right and wrong cannot exist.

This was echoed by the famous atheist philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


This is why he is credited with founding the perspectivism school of thought. This school teaches that there is no right or wrong or absolute truth, just individual perspectives. The Nazis were right, but so were the Allies. The Muslims are right, but so are the Christians and Hindu, etc. Basically, he taught that truth could only be known from a perspective and there was no absolute truth. Later, he moved past this into true Nihilism, where he said there is no truth, no right and no wrong.

Come guys...everyone who is not mentally sick knows what is right and what is wrong . I think saying there is no right and no wrong is just another way of trying to say we can not see the sun or the moon or both .

And why is it that everyone knows that is right and wrong? God, Evolution or Society? Is there an option I have missed? What is the source of world wide agreed upon morality, which you just admitted exists. You yourself have just thrown out the possibility of evolution and society, by stating that "everyone who is not mentally sick...".

I beg to differ. There is no confusion at all concerning the point that I am making.

My point is very simple. Even followers of religions don't agree on what their doctrines supposedly say. Therefore things like the crusades are right on point. As would be the burning times when midwives were tortured and burned alive as 'witches' in the name of Jesus Christ the almighty savior.

There is no confusion here at all.

The fact that has been well established by history is that doctrines that claim to be the 'word of God' are indeed extremely dangerous for the very reason that they are wide-open to personal interpretation.

Just about anything that you can dredge up from the Bible to support some moral or ethical view in the name of God, someone else can conjure up an entirely different interpretation that conflicts with your view entirely.

And that is the point I'm making. Religions that are based on man-made doctrines cannot possible be the 'word of God' because of the very fact that they are wide-open to interpretations. It's really nothing more than personal opinions supported as being backed by "God".

Even Adolph Hitler appealed to Christianity to support his denunciation of the Jews. The fact is that the Bible can indeed be used to support that view. You may vehemently disagree with that, but that's totally moot. You opinions don't matter because that's all they are, just personal opinions.

That's the problem with religions that are based on ancient doctrines. Any interpretations of them at all, are necessarily nothing more than personal opinions. All those doctrines accomplish is to arm people with the asinine idea that their opinions represent the will of god.

So things like the crusades cannot be swept aside as being 'misrepresentative of true Christianity'. On the contrary, they are precisely representative of what kinds of behavior Christianity can be used to support.

Same things goes for the Burning Times.

If you want to appeal to ancient dogma as the 'absolute word of God' then you must necessarily recognize every instance where this doctrine was used to support that ideal. Even when it was used to support atrocities.

Like I say, had you been living during the crusades you may very well have been murdered for you blaspheme views. You could have easily been killed by the Christians in the name of Jesus Christ the almighty Savior simply for refusing to jump on the Crusader's bigotry wagon.

You can't dismiss that. That's precisely the point I'm making. These kinds of dogmatic religions are nothing more than the personal opinions of men held out as the "word of God".

All those religions do is arm people with the asinine idea that they speak for God because they believe that their interpretation of the doctrine is the only correct interpretation.

That's far more dangerous than say, the atheists, who at least recognize that they are responsible for their own choice of ethics.

Christians use God as an excuse to hate sinners and heathens (even though they refuse to confess this very fact). That's the danger of those religions. Could Bin Laden have succeeded in getting people to go along with his plan if they didn't believe that they were somehow serving a higher God?

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Bin Laden, or Jesus Christ, or the crusades. It's the same difference in all cases. Prejudiced and bigotry held in the name of a god. Dogma used to support personal opinions in the name of God.

So no, you can't dismiss the crusades, or the witch burnings, as having been 'wrong interpretations' of the dogma. All interpretations must be considered as an equal example of how this works. If any nasty examples can be shown, then the proof that it's merely personal opinion and interpretations being held-out as the "will of God" has been well-established.

The dogma of the Mediterranean regions has been proven to be useless at best, and dangerous at worst.

It's right on point.

Any individuals who just happen to make something good out of it were probably just good people to begin with and would have made something good out of anything even if they had been atheists.

So it's not the dogma that has any value, but rather the people who interpret it. Some people interpret it in a positive way, other's interpret it in a negative way. It's all just personal opinion held-out as the "word of God".

Where it fails miserably is when those religious people refuse to listen to reason just because the reasonable person is an atheist. Then it becomes nothing more than an excuse for prejudice and bigotry held-out in the name of God.

So I'm personally not impressed by religions. Especially the one's that arose from the male-chauvinistic jealous dogma that claims to be the "word" of the God of Abraham.

I think that's a very good question because we have many historic examples of humans who have exhibited very high degrees of morality or ethics, yet they never gave religious doctrines a passing thought.

If our conscious comes from within, then this is where we should seek our morality and ethics, not from dogmas written by other men who may not have even had a conscience as good as ours.

Clearly all men do not have the same conscience. And that even includes many men who use religious dogma to support their bigoted views.

I'm afraid you completely missed my point about the crusades. Any moral doctrine, including Christianity and even Atheism, must include self-defense. The Crusades were a moral response to immoral aggression. While there were no doubt immoral excesses to the Crusades, the crusades were the only thing that stopped the Jihad. Without the crusades, it's very possible that Europe would still be entirely Muslim, just as the Middle Eastern lands conquered in the first Jihad are still Muslim. The only country in the world that became Islamic by free will was Saudi Arabia. The remainder of the countries in the Middle East were Christian and Jewish until the Jihad changed this.

Where is your curiosity? If your conscience comes from within...how did it get there? Evolution? Society? God? Is there another choice?