Sen

This thread is spawned from the "I'm tired of the "Bush will run rampant and oppress me for the next 4 yrs." syndrome " thread.

There were some things mentioned in that thread that need intellectual reconciliation.

On one hand you have people saying that the majority decides what is right and wrong in a democracy, and on the other hand you have some saying that the majority doesn't decide what IS right and wrong, but what course of action we are going to take. In other words, right and wrong are absolute and the majority can be wrong. Cases cited include, slavery, interracial marriage bans and the holocaust. Clearly cases where the majority of the population supported things that, today, we easily agree were wrong.

In another section, someone points out that they are disturbed by the fact that 45% of Americans believe that life was created, not evolved. They point out that we are just animals, albeit highly advanced animals.

Herein lies the question: If we are just animals and there is no higher power, what determines right and wrong, if NOT the majority? It seems to me that to believe that we are simply animals with no higher authority AND the majority can be wrong is intellectually disengenuous. If there is no higher moral authority, then who determines what is right and what is wrong, if not the majority? If right and wrong are absolute, then where did the concepts come from? If the concept of right and wrong were invented in the human mind, then can't right and wrong evolve like everything else? Couldn't something have been "right" for one group of people in time and now "wrong" now? What makes any one persons concept of right and wrong superior to anyone elses?

I chose the political forum over the philosophy forum for this question because of the implications the answers have for representative democracy.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

Coppertop

The role of the government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Slavery, religious discrimination, race discrimination - all these things are prime examples of what was once viewed as acceptable by the majority. That doesn't make them right.

Sen

I agree. My question is for those who don't believe in a higher power. How do they determine what is right and wrong if not by the voice of the majority?

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

JumpinJesus

There are some issues on which nearly every person agrees, whether their belief stems from an absolute view of right and wrong or not. Murder, robbery, and other crimes are easy to agree upon because there is a definite victim in these cases and people can agree that these things are wrong even if they don't believe in a higher power.

Other issues are more nebulous and cannot be argued from a firm right or wrong position. Issues like gay marriage or stem cell research do not fit into a category of absolute right and wrong for everyone. There are those who believe in a higher power who are for gay marriage and stem cell research while there are those who are against both issues yet do not believe in a higher power.

Where do we get these ideas of right and wrong? I don't have that answer. How should we act on those beliefs as a society? I believe the way we do it now is one of the best methods. We vote on these issues. When the majority speaks, we act on their wishes. However, this does not mean that they are right; it just means we act on their wishes. The minority of voters who do not agree with the majority continue their fight to enact what <i>they</i> believe is right, and so the cycle continues.

There are countless historical examples of cases in which the majority was wrong both in its interpretation of theological issues and in its political stance. The Roman Catholic Church circa 1650 comes to mind. They had the bible and the majority of the population on its side when they challenged Galileo for having the gall to suggest that Copernicus was right. The Church was wrong on both counts.

Our ideas of right and wrong are in constant flux. While there will always be what we consider absolutes (i.e. certain crimes); other issues will always be up for debate.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Ilow

First, thank you for taking the initiative to start this thread. I would like to say initially that a belief in evolution or a disbelief in creationism does not mean that a person does not believe in god or some other higher power or powers. It is certainly possible to believe that god and evolution can coexist, except in the belief systems of literal interpretationists.
I think you may be confused when you ask if people do not believe in a higher power know right from wrong. Of course they do! Naturally their version or right and wrong will differ based on their society, location, system of gov. etc. The vast majority of people on earth do believe in some higher power, however, so it's kind of a moot point.
You question how it is possible that we could be animals AND the majority could be wrong is complicated because we are the only species that I can think of that operates on a "majority rule" system. I would say that it is perfectly possible for the majority to be wrong at any time, and in answer to your question there is no absolute right and wrong, and "right and wrong" can certainly evolve over time or differ between societies. I hope that this makes at least a little sense, because it's a broad topic to discuss.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

fibber

I'ld have to state the government's role as more of attempting to balance the will of the majority VS the rights of a single person. That being said the balance sways both ways at different points in our history.

The first example that comes to mind is based on the first amendment. By strict adherance to the first, I should be able to put a transmitter on top of my house and spew any shit I want to anyone who can get the signal on their set. We have established the FCC there to actually protect the majority at the expense of the rights of the minority, namely me, in that case. The protection extends from their controlling of the spectrum and distributing it to those who are willing to use the airwaves to provide for the local interests since the spectrum is like public land, and owned by the people but administered by the gov't.

Now if TV stations do anything for the benefit of the local people beyond local news anymore is another topic entirely, I think it's a decent example of the balance principle though.

Also be carefull of the use of right and wrong here. We don't lock folks up because murder is wrong, we lock them up because their right to do as they please has been deemed not as important as one of the basic rights, that of life, as in life, liberty ,and the persuit of happiness. They have infringed on the more important right. The gov't should strive to be amoral, but it does have to accept some semblance of morality when deciding which rights should have precedent over others.

-fibber

filtherton

It's all about thinking for yourself. Getting your opinion of right and wrong based on what the majority thinks is foolish at best, catastrophic at worst. Would you trust anything that you got from a large unorganized group whose only membership requirement was that someone had be a member of the species? The majority is a stupid, selfish, shorsighted, and easily swayed by shiny lights and pretty soundbites.

The golden rule at its core is secular, you don't need a diety to tell you that everyone treating eachother how they would like to be treated, assuming the majority aren't masochists, is a more compassionate and responsive society. The problem with getting your morals from a higher power is that often you are actually getting your morals from someone who claims to be able to interpret the desires of that higher power, instead of straight from the horse's mouth.

Pacifier

quick answer
common sense

Think about what makes sense for a society to live together, to get the best results for everyone that lives in that society. as a result you will get basic laws about murder, rape etc.

I found some site about secular Natural law sadly they are all in german. In german its called "Vernunftsrecht" or literally "law of the rationality"

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

kutulu

History shows us what is right and wrong. Right now we are just doing what we "think" is right or wrong. We won't know if the choices made in Iraq, Afganistan, and here were the right choices for several years.

Ilow

Well, history shows us what those in power think was right or wrong. History's losers don't get to write the history books regardless of their theoretical "rightness."

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

JimmyTheHutt

But then the subject of revisionism comes up, as well as the fact that the winner writes the history. Beyond that, when it comes to Iraq, I think we can make some educated guesses right now.

Morality is in constant flux. However, there does seem to be at least some sort of central focus line or point that it varies around, at least in most western countries. This may have something to do with the common background involving Christianity, as places that were not so exposed do not seem to share this common point of reference.

In regards to government, laws are not a function of morality, more of preserving order. Murder is illegal because its detrimental for society for citizens to go around killing each other, not because "life is sacred". Its also about balancing the rights of the individual vs. the society. At some point, the society takes precedence over the individual and thus we have laws to preserve society. However, the growing trend is to try and argue everything not endorsed by Christian Conservatives as "detrimental for society" and use legislation to remove it (see Violent Videogames, Sexual Content, etc, etc.). In doing so, they are overstepping the bounds where society needs to be protected into what they think is right. It is outside the common line, but still being enforced by law.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JJRousseau

Unfortunately, the majority with the biggest guns usually determine right and wrong.

But at the most basic level, 'wrong' is any action that interferes with another's rights without their permission. From there, we, as a society (read majority) determine which rights take precedent over others when they conflict. The government's jobs should be to protect those rights as we determine. Nothing more.

kutulu

We can make guesses as to whether it is right or wrong to be in Iraq but until we are completely out of there for a time period significant enough to establish whether has become a stable and contributing nation in the world or if things haven't changed and it's only a new face committing similar atrocities it is only a guess.

The fact that the winner writes the history is true to some extent but largly outdated. This isn't like it was 300 years ago when two nations could be at war and nobody gives a fuck. Nowdays there are the winners, the losers, and the observers. Even though they were defeated, the losers are never completely annihilated. There will always be those left over to tell their side of the story and say that although they were right, they lost. Whether it is ignored or not (or treated as revisionism) is a different story.

JimmyTheHutt

Indeed, but the problem is now "Where does one find impartial observers?" Even those not directly participating in a war have an interest in the outcome in this day and age. Getting factual data from anyone is difficult, if not impossible. The winner of any armed conflict will have the most stories to tell, and this is often what becomes the "truth" of the matter, even if some of the losers are still around to tell what their version of it.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

Stompy

History has made it apparent many many times that the majority isn't always right.

There will always be a need for others to want to control the morals of others, but there is no real reason for it except that they can't tolerate others who don't agree with them.

It *should* be based on common sense, but unfortunately it isn't.

Take prostitution for example... why exactly is that illegal?

Or... if a person is able to handle smoking a joint in the privacy of his home without affecting anyone, why is that illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't?

Society goes through awkward phases at times that make absolutely no sense, yet people always try to justify and rationalize.

I think the only real answer is the instinct of humans to always want to be at conflict with each other in some way and to show off power. Otherwise, what reasoning do we use for most of the ridiculous laws we create?

I think this country needs to get away from the "what you CAN'T do" mentality as opposed to creating more laws giving us more rights in terms of individual responsibility, yet maybe some restrictions if we misuse those rights.

For example, give individuals the right to smoke, drink, do whatever, but if it gets to a point where they become unruly to society, then isolate (or remove those particular rights) only to those individuals.

It might not be the right way, but neither is Democracy (it just so happens to be the thing that works for the time being).

__________________
I love lamp.

Sen

This makes sense, but where do the rights of a single person come from? The founding fathers believed "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously, the founding fathers believed in the existence of a higher power and that was the source of individual rights. With the absence of a higher power, how are we to determine what rights should take precedence over others? I've heard the term "common sense" thrown around a couple of times, but "common sense" in 1930's and 40's Germany said it was ok to anhiliate the Jews for the betterment of German society. I think we would all argue today that their viewpoint was wrong...an example of the majority being wrong. However, if we are all just animals guided by "common sense" with no absolutes, then how can anyone argue that their "common sense" is superior to anyone else's? I believe it's wrong because I believe in morality being handed down by a higher power, like the founding fathers did.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

guy44

Sen, the problem, I think, with your line of reasoning is that it is ultimately either nihilistic or extremely divisive. This is because you either believe that well, if there is no "right" and "wrong" except how things are perceived, then, well, nothing is "right" or "wrong." Everything becomes relative.

Or, your reasoning leads you to believe that if there is a "true" "right" or "wrong," it must come from solely something otherwordly, like God or a higher being (I for one do believe in God, by the way). The problem with this philosophy is that it is highly divisive, as everyone tries to insist that the morals/ethics/rules laid down by their God/Supreme Being is right, and everyone else's is wrong.

I happen to believe reason can provide for some morals/ethics/rules for a society. I think the Social Contract is a perfect example of logic dictating society norms. That doesn't mean I agree with the Contract completely, or that I think that only reason has a role to play. It is difficult: I believe in reasoned morality, and a higher being, and in moral relativity (to a degree...you, know, relatively...). That's why it's called philosophy: there's no easy answer and all that discussion will probably lead nowhere. Habermas, if he had any common sense, would be depressed.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Sen

Just because someone holds a view that is divisive, doesn't meant that it's wrong or fallible. I'm sure that it was once considered divisive to believe the world was round. While it is true that religions all believe that their morality is the correct one, there are common threads among all religions, like the sanctity of human life (in the philisophical way, not necessarily the pro-life as it relates to abortion way). Even the Eastern religions hold life sacred. I fail to see how there is a problem with believing something that is divisive. It seems to me that inherently, no matter what they believe, people think they are right and others are wrong. If they didn't, they would believe something else. No one would conscisously, truly believe something that they think is wrong.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

MSD

We have several basic rights, you could call them "basic human rights" if you want:

The right to not be killed or harmed
The right to be personal privacy
The right to own private property
The right to be free from intimidation or coercion

It is not ethically justifiable for the majority to impose its will upon the minority in violation of those rights. A right is a social contract which guarantees that the majority will respect the minority in regard to that issue. The only justification for violating one of another person's rights is to protect your own rights from an unprovoked attempt to violate your rights. Therefore it is acceptable to kill in self-defense, or to strike back if you are about to be harmed, but it is not acceptable for the majority of people to kill you just because you do not agree with them politically, or they feelt that they are superior to you (i.e. Nazism/Fascism.)

flstf

I believe our government was/is designed to allow the majority to determine what is right or wrong within limits spelled out in the constitution. And the constitution is somewhat inflexible and can only be modified with great difficulty.

Sen

Where do these rights come from? According to Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton etc., the come from "the Creator." If not from "the Creator," then from where? Common Sense? John Locke?

If not from "the Creator" then they were created by man. If they were created by man, then the only thing that makes them stand the test of time is that the majority in any given society have agreed to uphold them. Right?

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

tellumFS

Just to throw in an opinion to the original question:

Originally, I'd say it was fear of retribution that determined right from wrong. You can see this today among some baboons-if a male baboon has a friend, and said friend has an infant, the baboon will take the infant hostage if threatend by another male. Why? Because the other male won't press the attack if it knows it will have to deal with the kin of the female who the infant belongs to if it harms the infant in the attack.

Lack of fear of retribution makes people act the way they do when they violate the law. Whether the lack of fear comes from hubris or rash actions depends on the act (Say Enron v. "crimes of passion"). But that fear of retribution isn't the only reason for "moral action" today. Modern people, when pushing for fair trade, or human rights are pushing for an idealistic goal now...or trying to prevent human rights violations from happening to them because if you let a government get away with them, it is possible other governments will try the old "monkey see, monkey do".

JimmyTheHutt

The use of that term in the Declaration of Independence must also be coupled with the fact that Jefferson and Franklin (two of the main architects of said document) were Diests. This means that they treated God as a first cause and nothing more. By way of this belief, God created the Earth, and Man, and then sat back and watched the machine run. It does not imply inclusion of any other Christia Dogma into the Principles of this nation.

This makes logical sense. However, expanding this into a larger point does not hold. It is not to say that the majority got this one thing right, and therefore they are always right. It is a logical fallacy. The majority CAN be correct, they just aren't always. More often then not, they are INCORRECT. A mob may be convinced of the correctness of its actions, but that doesn't automatically make the L. A. riots a morally correct act. The majority cannot absolutely determine what is right and wrong for the minority.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JJRousseau

Wasn't that written by a guy named JJ Rousseau?

Pacifier

yes.
Mankind, for different reasons decided to live together in larger groups (what we call now "society"). To live together you need to have certain rules to ensure a peaceful together, those are the basic rights MrSelfDestruct mentioned above.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Sen

By this reasoning, basic rights are determined by the group of people you happen to live with. In other words, the fact that China, Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, etc. violates what we call "human rights" is not a violation at all, it's simply a violation of OUR DEFINITION of human rights. By this logic, they just developed different rules for living together than we did.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

Sen

There are quotes from these gentleman that would indicate that they believed in the Bible more than just Deism. Furthermore, regardless of their specific Christian beliefs, they still credit God with the endowment of rights.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

smooth

On a local level, many people subscribe to this line of logic.

On a global level, the determination is made by larger, umbrella organizations (i.e., the group of people deciding is no longer within a particular nation but within global institutions). So the "OUR" is reflexive of the world, as a whole.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

GMontag

The whole question of where rights come from can be dealt with logically. A society has a certain set of rules and norms governing the behavior of its citizens. These rules directly affect the viability of that society. If a society survives a long time, then its set of rules is probably a pretty good one. We've learned through trial and error (and probably a little evolutionary biology) a general idea of what works well. Those things include all the specific rights mentioned in the thread above. Its Darwinism applied to societies, but with a fuzzier method of heredity.

aliali

That is not the role of the government. Read the constitution. The government is to protect the minority in certain circumstances and respect the majority in certain circumstances. It's fair to argue about whether a particular issue falls into one or the other, but patently false to ignore the majority's rightful and lawful role in government.

aliali

Your social contract is written down. It's called the constitution. You can claim more rights and argue about the meaning of those written down in the constitution, but it is not the government's job to ignore the majority according to what one person or another person thinks. That is unworkable. Like it or not, your rights that are guaranteed to you are written down and you're free to read them as well as the law interpreting them.

The right to be free from intimidation or coercion? That is one thing that the government violates on a daily basis.

aliali

I agree, but with one small amendment. Right and wrong is not what is decided, it is lawful or unlawful. Right and wrong cannot be simply decided and written down.

flstf

Yes, lawful and unlawful are better terms to use than right and wrong. What the majority thinks is right or wrong often becomes law, gay marriage, etc...

Coppertop

How exactly does this go against what I posted:

aliali

Right. The majority may act on what it thinks is right and wrong and make laws accordingly, but that doesn't make something right or wrong. It does, however, make it the law.

MSD

It's a slightly more verbose way of saying "My right to extend my arm ends at the tip of your nose." That's as basic as you can get without allowing for abuse of others. Some may argue that privacy and property aren't really rights, but I feel that the guarantee to those is an essential part of human nature.

aliali

Don't mean to be picky. I thought you were suggestioning that the protection of the minority was the role of the government, not a role.

roachboy

if the states was in any meanigful way a democracy, maybe there would be an argument for the majority position being more correct than another--democracy would presuppose informed debate amongst members of the population because they would be charged with the direct exercize of power. which would mean that they would need information. they would need to agree on ways to deal with distortion. there would have to be meaingful debate.

none of these basic conditions obtains in the states. democracy is a word thrown around from within a clilmate of managed opinion. information is obviously distorted--distortion is routine, all part of marketing a particular political position. debate is largely meaningless, and even where it is not there are very few mechanisms in which people exercisze power directly, as a collective.

in the states, political decisions are packaged like consumer options. in the states, politics is a type of consumption.

if that is true, then the question of whether the majority is right or not would be like wondering if the fact that more people eat skippy than jiff peanut butter meant that skippy is right and jiff wrong.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Coppertop

Yeah, obviously the government has more responsibilities than this, but that's a whole different thread.

smooth

finally...a sensible discussion.

Skippy is right.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman