Right and Wrong

How can you be so sure god exists?

Besides, I don't need to be sure he doesn't exist. I don't believe in god because that's not the way my mind works, that's not the way I explain things. And you can still be moral without creating a vengful/forgiving/etc. deity.

preacher> it is completely dependent on belief though. cause you can not prove right or wrong with god. i know what you are saying, but if god is the only way to prove absolute right or wrong, then you can't relaly prove it to a non-believer, whether it exists or not.

thesecretfire> so you are advocating that there is some ultimate morality that runs through humanity? or are you just saying it is possible to have "morals?" really though, what are morals? without something to set an absolute right or worng, there can be no real "morals." you could say taking human life is "wrong" but what about canibalistic cultures? are they wrong, or just different? right and wrong just depends on which side of the issue you are on. absolutes can not exist outside of some creator. there is no greater good or ultimate morality that all humans have.

Consider this hypothetical possibility.
Let's say that there is a place called hell, where people are
tortured day and night for milloins of years with no relief.

Now assume that these people believe that "morality is relative" and
that you can't state with certainty that any action is existentially "right" or "wrong"

Now, according to their own philosiphy, they cannot accuse their tormentor of
being in the wrong. It's only a matter of opinion.

And, since he has the power to do as he pleases, and can define "right and wrong"
in any way that seems sensible to him, he is right and they can all...
heh heh...go to hell.
:cool:

you are very correct in your statement. that is the way the world is.

Lord -

No the idea that all humans have certain set of rights that cannot be taken away is not just and opinion, it is the basis for all human interaction. Certainly some societies have used the idea of a social hierarchy to enslave others, but the idea that humans have rights that are universal is universal, embraced by most cultures, and enshrined in many documents in the western world and beyond....

As for preachermans comments, one cannot argue with those blinded by faith...

[Quote]As for preachermans comments, one cannot argue with those blinded by faith...[Quote]

Hi,
Well, I believe that is only in faith that we truly begin to see the world as it is. :)

jcmcb> who made these rights? are they all through one human good? one moral stream line? if so then you are niave. human nature is not freedom or liberty. most try to control others. most people try to better ones self not others. freedom is not a right in the ultimate scheme of things sort of way. it has been decided upon as a right by the western world. it is not some thing that has existed since the beginning of time. it is a relative thing, not an absolute. dominate american culture believes it is an absolute and that america is absolutely right because it allows this absolute right, but it is not quite so absolute.

In a way, morality is synonymous with power.
Absolute rules of morality cannot exist, unless
there is absolute power to enforce them.

In the face of tyrannical and oppressive government,
(take the NAZIs for example), why do some people
bend and comply, obey, join in and participate,
while some others resist?

It has to be their philosophical perception of:

"Who has legitimate authority?"
People don't like to act against their own conscience.
If my philosophy doesn't give my conscience
the permission to disobey the government,
I will not have a moral basis to resist.

If I'm convinced that I can appeal to a higher
authority, I can face the apparently overwhelming
force of the oppressor, knowing that I am on
the winning side.

"Relative morality", on the other hand, cuts
this resistance off at the knees, because people
will assume that, since the state has the power,
it has the right to make the rules.
:cool:

Lord Darkside x - You like the word absolute, don't you?

But seriously - No one "made" these rights... These rights exists because humans do not have an instictual (spelling? not on this post!) order like Wolfs or Hippos. We adopt social orders and organziations out of need, and those organizations do not grant us "rights" but rather take them away in return for stability and security.

Lord - I am surpised that you would deny that humans have basic rights that no governement can take away without consent, if at all. I was under the impression that you were an anarchist, or close to, and the idea that gov't is harmful to human rights is a basic tennet of the Anarchist Movement...

I could be totaly off on your political view points....

Freedom is not a right, but one of the things that make us human. Really, it is the capacity (is this the word?) to choose, only that. Freedom of movement, of expression, etc, are secondary. We all born free. The question is: Are we aware (?) of that. In the case of oppresed people, they may choose to fight... but death is always near. Maybe choosing to survive and delaying the moment to live a plenty life as we Westerns know (or not) is also a wise way. But, remember, Freedom makes us human (among other qualities, of course).

Any more?