There Are Such Things as "Right" and "Wrong"
I knew this guy once. He was a complete fucking moron, totally worthless. Anyway, he believed that the sky was blue because "air molecules" were blue. Since there's a lot of air in the atmosphere, he claimed, the sky looked like it was blue. This is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. Ever. First of all, what in the fuck is an "air molecule"? There's no such thing! Air consists of nitrogen and oxygen and a few other gases. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as an "air molecule." Since an air molecule does not exist, it cannot be blue.
Now, some of you might be thinking that maybe this kid thought this when we were in elementary school or something. That would be reasonable, given the utter stupidity of his statement. But, no. He said this while we were in college. And just for the record, i didn't go to Bob Jones University or some other pseudo-school. As far as i know, Norther Arizona University hasn't produced too many Nobel laureattes, but it is accredited.
So, what can we say about this stupid person? Are we to say that his view is just another valid opinion in the vast sea of valid opinions that comprise our diverse society? I guess you could say that, but then you, too, would be an unbelievable idiot. No, i think there's only one thing you can say. The guy was wrong. Clearly, undeniably, unquestionably wrong. Sure, he had an opinion, but it was wrong. His assertion doesn't hold up in terms of logic or physical reality. It was just wrong.
Because, you see, we live in a world where people can be right and wrong. Sad, perhaps, but true.
Now, let's take that lesson and apply it to something else. Morals. That word, unfortunately, has taken on an almost negative connotation thanks to idiots like James Dobson who tell us that they, and only they, have some sort of T1 connection to God and, therefore, only they can differentiate between right and wrong.
In my philosphy classes in college, i would constantly take the position that there are, in fact, such things as moral absolutes. Some actions are wrong, others are right, objectively speaking. Some idiot or another would almost always object that various different cultures and people have vastly different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Who am i, they would say, to declare that some culture's entire belief system was wrong? That's all very well and dandy, except that such people seem to have forgotten the lesson i hoped to instil with my opening anecdote: we live in a world in which it is possible to be right and wrong. When you have an opinion, that opinion is either correct or incorrect. So it is with moral judgments.
We make decisions in our every day lives that call for moral judgments. Most people do. And each of those judgments has the quality of being correct or incorrect, right or wrong. And i don't mean "correct" or "incorrect" when judged by the prevailing moral attitudes, but i mean "right" or "wrong" in a real, objective, meaningful way.
Cultural and moral relativism are, simply put, absurd. Thousands of decisions are justified by their context: slavery, the Holocaust and forced female circumcision are just a few examples. However, simply having taken place in a society where those actions were acceptable does not rid them of their inherently evil nature. Yes, societies exist or existed in which those things were acceptable, but when the people in those societies made the choices they made, they decided incorrectly. Those choices may have been perfectly "cool" under the standards of the societies in which they took place, but that does not excuse their inherent moral wrongness. All it does is demonstrate that the societies in which those atrocities arose were/are deeply flawed.
It's possible to criticize the position that absolute right and wrong exist, but just because different people at different times have had different opinions about what things are right and what things are wrong doesn't mean that the entire concept of moral absolutism goes out the window. To address this "criticism," all we have to do is remember what we learned from air molecule boy: people can be, and often are, wrong.
I'm willing to go on a limb here and propose a moral law. Ready? Here goes:
Any action that interferes with a human being's right to choose without adequate justification is wrong.
We can discuss this law, we can discuss lots of things. But i'm no longer willing to listen to the argument that whatever some people think is right is right.
Now, some of you might be thinking that maybe this kid thought this when we were in elementary school or something. That would be reasonable, given the utter stupidity of his statement. But, no. He said this while we were in college. And just for the record, i didn't go to Bob Jones University or some other pseudo-school. As far as i know, Norther Arizona University hasn't produced too many Nobel laureattes, but it is accredited.
So, what can we say about this stupid person? Are we to say that his view is just another valid opinion in the vast sea of valid opinions that comprise our diverse society? I guess you could say that, but then you, too, would be an unbelievable idiot. No, i think there's only one thing you can say. The guy was wrong. Clearly, undeniably, unquestionably wrong. Sure, he had an opinion, but it was wrong. His assertion doesn't hold up in terms of logic or physical reality. It was just wrong.
Because, you see, we live in a world where people can be right and wrong. Sad, perhaps, but true.
Now, let's take that lesson and apply it to something else. Morals. That word, unfortunately, has taken on an almost negative connotation thanks to idiots like James Dobson who tell us that they, and only they, have some sort of T1 connection to God and, therefore, only they can differentiate between right and wrong.
In my philosphy classes in college, i would constantly take the position that there are, in fact, such things as moral absolutes. Some actions are wrong, others are right, objectively speaking. Some idiot or another would almost always object that various different cultures and people have vastly different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Who am i, they would say, to declare that some culture's entire belief system was wrong? That's all very well and dandy, except that such people seem to have forgotten the lesson i hoped to instil with my opening anecdote: we live in a world in which it is possible to be right and wrong. When you have an opinion, that opinion is either correct or incorrect. So it is with moral judgments.
We make decisions in our every day lives that call for moral judgments. Most people do. And each of those judgments has the quality of being correct or incorrect, right or wrong. And i don't mean "correct" or "incorrect" when judged by the prevailing moral attitudes, but i mean "right" or "wrong" in a real, objective, meaningful way.
Cultural and moral relativism are, simply put, absurd. Thousands of decisions are justified by their context: slavery, the Holocaust and forced female circumcision are just a few examples. However, simply having taken place in a society where those actions were acceptable does not rid them of their inherently evil nature. Yes, societies exist or existed in which those things were acceptable, but when the people in those societies made the choices they made, they decided incorrectly. Those choices may have been perfectly "cool" under the standards of the societies in which they took place, but that does not excuse their inherent moral wrongness. All it does is demonstrate that the societies in which those atrocities arose were/are deeply flawed.
It's possible to criticize the position that absolute right and wrong exist, but just because different people at different times have had different opinions about what things are right and what things are wrong doesn't mean that the entire concept of moral absolutism goes out the window. To address this "criticism," all we have to do is remember what we learned from air molecule boy: people can be, and often are, wrong.
I'm willing to go on a limb here and propose a moral law. Ready? Here goes:
Any action that interferes with a human being's right to choose without adequate justification is wrong.
We can discuss this law, we can discuss lots of things. But i'm no longer willing to listen to the argument that whatever some people think is right is right.
^ Thats about the greatest thing I have ever heard katherine. I love it. I think that should be my new slogan.
"I am ALWAYS right. If you don't agree, then you are WRONG"
thats soo awesome...
i tend to agree with you andy. my version of a "moral law" goes something like:
"Any action that interferes with a human being's freedom or bodily security without adequate justification is wrong."
then you can go on forever discussing what adequate justification is, although i tend to think the only adequate justification for interference with another's F or BS is that your freedom or bodily security is threatened by them.
-elise
My moral theory does not require that there be a "universal conscience." I'm not even really sure what you mean by that. Instead, what i'm saying is just a logical outgrowth of the recognition of the respect that an individual human being deserves.
You can argue, of course, about why a human being deserves such respect, and you can attribute it to God or some other reason (i choose another reason), but there is nothing about what i've said that requires God or a "universal conscience," other than that we all have the same capacity for logical, reasoned thought. But that's no more a "universal conscience" than the fact that most people like cheesecake.
Elise, i'm going to have to say that i generally agree with your version of the law, and with your model of "adequate justification."
I agree with your argument about the existense of some absolute morality (as you well know), but I feel that there is an important counter example to elise's justification criteria. The example is children. According to her justification, I can give adequate justification to interfere with someone's personal freedom or bodily security if my personal freedom is threatened. Imagine a child and a parent and a situation in which the the freedom of the child is dependent on the parents loss of freedom. An example would be the child's right to eat when hungry versus the parents right to not have to work hard enough to provide the child with food. Obviously it is moraly wrong for the parent to choose not to provide for the child, even though the child interferes with the parents personal freedom. I am sure there are many more examples, but most importantly, I don't think anything that interfers with personal freedom (or bodily safety for that matter) can always be a justification.
T1 connection to God. BRILLIANT.