What do "Right" and "Wrong" Then Mean?

Several of us have been debating what I recently called The End of Right and Wrong. One of the challenges has been to come to agreement about what we mean by these words. Do they mean the same thing in an ethic that views them as absolute as they do in a relativist ethic?

Here are some excerpts from the series of comments, where I posed a question:

"The atheist’s problem is with the definition of evil, or more precisely, the ability to name anything at all as evil. We all have an internal sense that some things are wrong, so we all intuitively use the word; but if there is no God, how is it possible that anything is appropriately described that way? There is a deep problem with it."

One answer from Paul, an atheist, was:

"Because you can only imagine right and wrong in absolute terms, once we remove the absolute nature of right and wrong, you think the entire idea of right and wrong is gone, and that is just not so. Right and wrong can still have meaning even though they are not absolutes, just like up and down still have local, relativistic meaning in Einstien’s physics, as opposed to Newton’s absolute frame of reference."

Part of my answer was,

"You can change the definition of 'up' and 'down' based on relativity. You can also change the definition of 'right' and 'wrong' in a relativistic ethical framework. But I ask you to be honest in that definition. Can you distinguish 'right' and 'wrong' from 'what I and people like me prefer' and 'what I and people like me do not prefer'?"

Then we traded these responses (leaving a lot out here, of course). Paul said,

"Yes, what does 'wrong' mean? I don't think the word 'wrong' has to change its meaning in any other regard when it means a local/relative moral wrong as opposed to an absolute moral wrong besides the difference between local/relative and absolute. Can you say why it might be required that the difference must be more than just the difference between local/relative and absolute?"

My response was,

"Sure, I can say why it must change meanings. If 'wrong' is absolute, then it refers to a violation of a objective and universal code of ethics that has its origin in a transcendent giver of morality. So, I'd [still] like to know what it means in your relative system."

Now I'm bringing the question from that long discussion out here into the main blog. What do you think?

Part 3 of a series. See also:
1. Evolution and Ethics
2. The End of Right and Wrong?
4. What's to Become of Right and Wrong? A Wrapup

Posted: Sun - September 18, 2005 at 09:56 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

What do "Right" and "Wrong" Then Mean?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson