What do the words "right" and "wrong" really mean?

[Former Believer]

In a previous thread, I proposed an alternative method for addressing morality. Instead of looking at a behavior as "right" or "wrong", I suggested that we look at it as either kind or unkind.  In so doing, I was attempting to divorce human behavior from acts based on obligation.

From the time we are little, we are taught that things are "right" or "wrong".  We are told that we "should" do certain things.  But is this the truth?

One major difficulty I have had in my transition to atheism is how to deal with morality. I formally argued that if there were no god then we are simply matter interacting with other matter.  My line of thinking was that if this is the case then nothing is truly "right" or truly "wrong".  No one is obligated to do anything.  If this is the case, then what Hitler did really wasn't "wrong".  That is a disburbing thought to me.  However, in an attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue, I am attempting to be open in regards to my thinking.  

Which brings me back to my original question:  What do "right" and "wrong" really mean?  Are these terms based on the commands of a deity?  Do they have significant meaning?  Or, are they terms that have to do with obligation, not with the effects of performing a certain action?

Is it in appropriate for atheists to describe anything as "right" or "wrong"?  Or should we describe things as either "kind" or "unkind"?  Or is there other alternatives that we should consider?

[Apotheosis]

Is it in appropriate for atheists to describe anything as "right" or "wrong"?  Or should we describe things as either "kind" or "unkind"?  Or is there other alternatives that we should consider?

Going to war against a country after they have attacked you, such as the Pearl Harbor incident:

"Right" or "wrong"? "Kind" or "unkind"?

Engaging in warfare is never kind, but it is not always wrong either, imho. I don't think "kind" and "unkind" work.

[Airyaman]

Is it "unkind" to exceed the speed limit? Perhaps you could say so because it puts yourself and others at a greater risk, but it is "wrong" because it is unlawful.

Another example is underage drinking. If a 20 year old drinks, is that "unkind"? I would say no more so than a 21 y.o., because the end result is the same. But it is unlawful, thus "wrong".

[Former Believer]

Is it in appropriate for atheists to describe anything as "right" or "wrong"?  Or should we describe things as either "kind" or "unkind"?  Or is there other alternatives that we should consider?

Going to war against a country after they have attacked you, such as the Pearl Harbor incident:

"Right" or "wrong"? "Kind" or "unkind"?

Engaging in warfare is never kind, but it is not always wrong either, imho. I don't think "kind" and "unkind" work.

You're right.  It doesn't work in that context.  Without thinking about it a whole lot, I would view retaliatory actions in the context of self survival. 

Based on my OP, what is your opinion on how to frame things?

[Former Believer]

Is it "unkind" to exceed the speed limit? Perhaps you could say so because it puts yourself and others at a greater risk, but it is "wrong" because it is unlawful.

Another example is underage drinking. If a 20 year old drinks, is that "unkind"? I would say no more so than a 21 y.o., because the end result is the same. But it is unlawful, thus "wrong".

In this context, you are using the word "wrong" to describe something in legal terms.  Are you equating "wrong" with "illegal"?  Or does it have a broader meaning here?

[Airyaman]

In this context, you are using the word "wrong" to describe something in legal terms.  Are you equating "wrong" with "illegal"?  Or does it have a broader meaning here?

Yes, I am using legal terms because I consider much outside of the legal realm to be more relative. For instance, lying could be classified as "wrong", but it could be either "kind" or "unkind" depending on the circumstances. If I lied to protect someone from harm ("he's not here, I haven't seen him") that would be "kind". If I lied to avoid controversy because of a screw-up ("I put the check in the mail last week"), that would be "unkind".

[SkunkButt]

It means you can have a wrong meaning of the right word or the right meaning of a wrong word.

[QuestionMark]

You need two definitions, one revolving around justice and the other around love/mercy.

Justice is doing what is merited or warranted. It's right to give people what you owe them, and to not take something that belongs to another. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth also works as a penal system. If there is a debt, then it should be repayed.

On the other hand, there is a higher sort of goodness that goes beyond obligation, as you have pointed out. It is based in the increasingly understood reality that unmerited favor, love, mercy, etc actually do the opposite of what you would expect. You would expect that if you go above and beyond your 'obligations' you would simply be wasting your resources without recompense. What actually happens is that others are inspired to do the same. Good behavior is contagious.

In essence you could boil it down to the teaching of Jesus "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[Former Believer]

Justice is doing what is merited or warranted. It's right to give people what you owe them, and to not take something that belongs to another. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth also works as a penal system. If there is a debt, then it should be repayed.

I think the words merited and warranted imply a sense of obligation.  For the theist, this obligation stems from commands from his deity.  In the case of an atheist, merited or warranted might be used based on collective social understandings.  They are useful terms to describe actions that benefit society.  When you say a debt "should" be repayed, I think you need to look at what the term "should" means.  If you believe God commands that you repay debts, then "should" is tied to a sense of obligation to a deity.  From my godless perspective, a better word than "should" would be "expected".  Society operates from collective agreements, one of which is that debts are to be repayed.  If a person chooses not to repay a debt, he is not doing what is expected nor is he being "kind" (from my op) because his actions will cause suffering to the person who made him the loan.

What I am saying is counterintuitive.  From the time most of us are young, actions are characterized as "right" and "wrong" and "good" or "bad".  Often these actions are tied to a deity's commands.  We accept as fact that we "should" do certain things.  We characterize things as "right" or "wrong" without thinking about what those words mean. As I mentioned, grappling with moral concerns is one of the more difficult challenges I've had as an atheist.  From what I've read on this forum, I believe that other atheists and agnostics have struggled with it as well.  In reading books written by atheists, I am not satisfied entirely with how they come to terms with morality.  The social pressure to classify things as "right" or "wrong" and the indoctrination that almost every person on this planet undergoes when learning about these concepts is so powerful, I think that perhaps that atheists are not sometimes willing to look at the logical conclusions of some of their thinking and perhaps conflate elements of theistic morality into their own definitions.  At the same time, I have seen the problems associated with the Eurythro dilemma and the Divine Command Theory of morality.       

[QuestionMark]

It's not a deep philosophical problem. God gave you a brain capable of understanding that you are expected to do what you say you'll do, especially if you make an oath or promise(certifying clearly your intention to do something, not joking etc). I do not think that 'should' is any more tied to a diety than morality itself is.

Without pain of an afterlife subject to the scrutiny of God there is no reason that you should do what others expect of you, unless it agrees with your personal goals for life.

If you want a transcendent morality, you are forced to go to something higher than humans... and atheists are wont to avoid higher powers.

[nateswift]

+1 to FB for exploring these areas.  IMO it is not a good practice to tear down a social fabric (in this case the decidedly dominant perception of theism) without at least pointing the way to constructive replacement.  From my standpoint, this is as important a job as pointing out the various abuses of different forms stemming from theism without actually challenging the perception of deity.
I'd be interested in some sketchy perceptions of replacement values made by anti-theists.

[QuestionMark]

Wisdom!

[meAgain]

FB: Which brings me back to my original question:  What do "right" and "wrong" really mean?  Are these terms based on the commands of a deity?  Do they have significant meaning?  Or, are they terms that have to do with obligation, not with the effects of performing a certain action?

Is it in appropriate for atheists to describe anything as "right" or "wrong"?  Or should we describe things as either "kind" or "unkind"?  Or is there other alternatives that we should consider?

I think right and wrong can be determined logically by accepting the world around us. The world works in a certain way (whether you attribute this to God or not – it is simply a fact). It would be good (right) to do that which accepts the natural laws of this world. It would be wrong not to. I think it could be argued that ultimately it would be wrong for man to not live in accordance to a certain way. Men, since the beginning of time, have realized that it is for man’s own good (even if such good is not immediately realized) to do what is right vs. what is wrong. 

One’s obligation to do the right thing merely comes down to one’s obligation to reach full human fulfillment. If man desires less than what he could obtain were he to do the right thing, that is certainly his choice, but couldn’t all men reason that such poor behavior would be wrong? I see nothing wrong with admitting in any given situation there is a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do. I believe it is something all men are capable of determining. (This is not to say it’s always easy, but it is certainly possible).

[meAgain]

FB: If a person chooses not to repay a debt, he is not doing what is expected nor is he being "kind" (from my op) because his actions will cause suffering to the person who made him the loan.

But this then makes me wonder how do human beings instinctually know not to cause others suffering? How do we all universally know every man should have equal rights and is of significance simply for being a human being? Or do we?

I believe the reason there is no difference in atheists vs Christians regarding morality is b/c there is something innate in all men regarding right and wrong.

So a nonbeliever does not have to give credit to God or believe he is responsible to a higher power in order to do the right thing. It is more than reasonable to conclude certain things to be right and certain things to be wrong based on man and how he relates to his world.

All men can know that what Hitler did was wrong. It is something that is almost too obvious to require explanation. And personally, I don’t believe it is wrong for people to insist certain behaviors are wrong, if it is something that all men can reason to be preventative of human fulfillment. In fact, it would be silly to not admit such truth based on the world we live in.

I think non believers get scared when we speak of right and wrong b/c they think it implies there must be some higher authority. I don’t know, perhaps it does, but I think it would be very difficult to deny the universal assumptions of right and wrong. You can argue that there are cultural differences, but I disagree. Different cultures might rationalize their reasons for doing something for different reasons, but what is right and what is considered wrong is universal.

For example, all know it wrong to purposely kill an innocent human being, so the only way something like abortion can be justified is if one considers the being growing inside the woman to not be fully human.

This is similar to when I have noticed nonbelievers distaste for the mention of the word design. The atheist’s fears design must imply a designer. Well, I don’t know if that is true or not. That is something the non-believer would have to reconcile. But what I think is strange it is to attempt to deny that in fact there exists design, order, purpose and function in this world. IMO, it is evident all around us.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Former Believer]

It's not a deep philosophical problem. God gave you a brain capable of understanding that you are expected to do what you say you'll do, especially if you make an oath or promise(certifying clearly your intention to do something, not joking etc). I do not think that 'should' is any more tied to a diety than morality itself is.

This is an assertion, based on your god belief and theology.  Books have been written about the evolution or morality, its biological basis, and its utility in the survival of the species.  Animals, like humans, often engage in "immoral" acts such as fighting and killing for territory and mating rights, deception, homosexuality, and having multiple sex partners.  At the same time they engage in cooperative relationships and have developed "rules" to help their communities survive and function in a more orderly manner.  I think it is reasonable to theorize that human morality is an evolved component of the cooperative relationships we see in the animal kingdom.  Maybe guilt is an evolutionary derivative of fear, an emotional component that helps ensure that animals "play by the rules" of their species.

Without pain of an afterlife subject to the scrutiny of God there is no reason that you should do what others expect of you, unless it agrees with your personal goals for life.

Not true.  A person who violates what others expects of him suffers natural consequences for his failure to do so.  He is ostracized, has his assets seized, is imprisoned, or executed.  Moreover, the human attributes of empathy and compassion enable a person to act in a kind manner to others.

If you want a transcendent morality, you are forced to go to something higher than humans... and atheists are wont to avoid higher powers.

No, because theists don't have a transcendent morality.  Their morality differs amongst themselves and has also evolved over time.

[Former Believer]

I think non believers get scared when we speak of right and wrong b/c they think it implies there must be some higher authority. I don’t know, perhaps it does, but I think it would be very difficult to deny the universal assumptions of right and wrong. You can argue that there are cultural differences, but I disagree. Different cultures might rationalize their reasons for doing something for different reasons, but what is right and what is considered wrong is universal.

Hi Me....most of you mentioned in your post I have addresses subsequently in my most recent post with QM.  I'm not going to address the design argument as I feel that is off topic (maybe you can start another thread).  I would like to address your comments above, however.

What is considered right and wrong is not unversal at all.  Not only does morality differ within cultures, it has evolved within those cultures over time, including within the religions that are either partially or largely responsible for that morality.  When you say people "rationalize" morality, I think you are making an egocentric judgement based on what seems to be right to you.  Someone with a different moral outlook could say the same about you.  And, because God (if he exists) provides no form of direct communication in order to clarify who has got things "right" and who has got them "wrong", all such determinations come from individuals operating within the environment of their cultural upbringing and their interpretation of their particular brand of theism.

[QuestionMark]

Not true.  A person who violates what others expects of him suffers natural consequences for his failure to do so.  He is ostracized, has his assets seized, is imprisoned, or executed.

Not if he is in power. When did ever see those without power oppress those with power? The human morality is that a man will generally be willing to abuse someone else if he has the power to do so with acceptable risk.

No, because theists don't have a transcendent morality.  Their morality differs amongst themselves and has also evolved over time.

Transcendent in the sense of appealing to something above. I'm not arguing that it is above(though I would), only that it is perceived to be from above. Atheism can never offer an ultimate justification for doing one thing over another. Since there is no purpose to life, there is no right and wrong.

[Former Believer]

Not true.  A person who violates what others expects of him suffers natural consequences for his failure to do so.  He is ostracized, has his assets seized, is imprisoned, or executed.

Not if he is in power. When did ever see those without power oppress those with power? The human morality is that a man will generally be willing to abuse someone else if he has the power to do so with acceptable risk.

You make a reasonable point here.  I've seen instances where power enables the powerful to treat others poorly and get away with it indefinitely, if not forever.  On the other hand, I'm sure you've heard the old saying "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."  Those who abuse power and mistreat others often must live with the fear that their deeds will come back to haunt them.  Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.  Look at Sadam Hussein.  Also, many of the people who abuse positions of power are god believers who aren't living in a manner consistent with their beliefs.  The problem for these folks isn't that there isn't that they don't have a moral code based on religious teachings, but rather that they are acting in violation of those beliefs.  

[Former Believer]

No, because theists don't have a transcendent morality.  Their morality differs amongst themselves and has also evolved over time.

Transcendent in the sense of appealing to something above. I'm not arguing that it is above(though I would), only that it is perceived to be from above. Atheism can never offer an ultimate justification for doing one thing over another. Since there is no purpose to life, there is no right and wrong.

When you used the term "transcendent", I thought you were referring to an absolute morality, emanating from God, which could clearly be indentified and understood.  If you are definining transcendent as something "outside of one's self" which compels or motivates him or her to do "the right thing", then I would argue that nature also acts as this "transcendent" force.  As previously discussed, people suffer consequences for failing to act in a manner acceptable to society.  This includes outcomes such as lessened access to economic resources, punishment for violation of laws, and diminished relationships with other humans.  In other words, even in a godless world, people have motivation to act nicely towards one another.

Having said that, I think that believing that certain things are "right" and "wrong" and that a deity demands that one does these things may provide a greater incentive for people to engage in what I would refer to as "kind" behaviors.  In fact, I believe that such thinking may have been an evolutionary development that has helped to keep our species intact.  But even if it is the case that such belief has and may continue to be helpful in maintaining the survival of the species, it does not mean that such belief is based in reality.

[QuestionMark]

You seem to have undergone a renaissance of your thinking...

[nateswift]

Having said that, I think that believing that certain things are "right" and "wrong" and that a deity demands that one does these things may provide a greater incentive for people to engage in what I would refer to as "kind" behaviors.  In fact, I believe that such thinking may have been an evolutionary development that has helped to keep our species intact.  But even if it is the case that such belief has and may continue to be helpful in maintaining the survival of the species, it does not mean that such belief is based in reality.

Outstanding point, IMO.  There is some question of the value of more, uh, etherial concepts such as "the brotherhood of man" as motivation. 
The other side of that coin is the manifest abuse of the concept. 
Where is the middle ground?

[Former Believer]

You seem to have undergone a renaissance of your thinking...

Please elaborate.

[Former Believer]

Outstanding point, IMO.  There is some question of the value of more, uh, etherial concepts such as "the brotherhood of man" as motivation.  
The other side of that coin is the manifest abuse of the concept.  
Where is the middle ground?

Thanks, Nate.  But I'm not sure what you are saying.

[nateswift]

While there may well be some value in "god" concepts for those who don't have a more philosophical nature, or who have not worked out tal the consequences of freedom from constraints that have worked to make society operate more or less smoothly and which are most often expressed as religious constraints on antisocial behavior, there is also the problem that all too often such restraints can become anti-social in themselves.  For instance the prohibition on homosexual expression even within a committed relationship.  Maybe a bad example for some, but we don't have sharia here, so it's a little more difficult.  Not all that many people are aware of the arbitrary nature of taboos in more primitive societies and so forth.
We need to get rid of the bad and retain the good in some way.  How do we do that?

[QuestionMark]

While there may well be some value in "god" concepts for those who don't have a more philosophical nature,

You know how hard it is to find an atheist philosopher?

[nateswift]

While there may well be some value in "god" concepts for those who don't have a more philosophical nature,

You know how hard it is to find an atheist philosopher?

Yes indeed: not at all.  Check under "secular humanism."

[Former Believer]

We need to get rid of the bad and retain the good in some way.  How do we do that?

Threads like this rattle my brain.  It's a challenging one for me, because I don't necessarily like the outcomes of my own theses, if they are true.  That's part of what being an agnostic/atheist entails, however.  Sometimes the conclusions the atheist reaches aren't pretty or ideal.  Without a god, we don't have a sympathetic father figure eager to help us whenever we call.  We don't get to live forever in eternal bliss with loved ones who have passed away (wow, what I would give to see my brother who died unexpectedly at age 32 about three years ago).  Dealing with "morality" isn't as tidy for atheists as it is theists, but reality (at least as I perceive it) mandates that I deal with what is, not what I wish would be. 

Because of some of the outcomes of my hypothesis, I'm not sure I can give you satisfying answer.  If a religion attempts to conform behavior to what it considers "right" or "wrong" adherents are subjected to whatever their particular deity or theology classifies as "right" or "wrong".  Such thinking has traditionally dictated cultural idealogies regarding appropriate behavior and has been manifested in many of those culture's laws, as well.  Ultimately, I guess, the only way to overcome the negative influences of god-oriented morality is for time and evolved thinking to enable people to change their attitudes of things they believe are mandated or acceptable to their gods.  As slavery is no longer accepted as being okay, I think other unkind religious mandates will eventually become vestiges of unenlightened thinking.   

[nateswift]

We need to get rid of the bad and retain the good in some way.  How do we do that?

  Ultimately, I guess, the only way to overcome the negative influences of god-oriented morality is for time and evolved thinking to enable people to change their attitudes of things they believe are mandated or acceptable to their gods.  As slavery is no longer accepted as being okay, I think other unkind religious mandates will eventually become vestiges of unenlightened thinking.   

Agreed about the brain-rattling, but I'm used to that.

Personally, I think you are right on here.  Currently, the position of women and homosexuality are high profile areas where attitudes are being changed within Christianity.  I'm afraid I'm not all that familiar with that kind of work being done in other religious traditions.
I vaguely know about some past currents in Reform Judaism, but am not up on current dynamics.
Jill mentioned Cat Stevens in another thread, and he has done a lot of work toward promoting peace.  Not sure how that is working out in Islam, we really only hear about the nuts there.

[QuestionMark]

Yes indeed: not at all.  Check under "secular humanism."

I'm talking about professional philosophers.

[nateswift]

Yes indeed: not at all.  Check under "secular humanism."

I'm talking about professional philosophers.

As in holding a chair in philosophy at a university?  Do you really want me to check?