One of the common arguments in defence of allowing a religious overtone to political or moral debating and teaching is that religious belief is necessary to provide a firm basis and sense of right and wrong.
But what this argument misses is that right and wrong are not universal concepts, so Christian teaching is necessary to teach Christian views on right and wrong, Islamic teaching would teach the Islamic side of right and wrong and the two would differ in some areas, in some it would differ very little if at all.
This led me to the conclusion at a fairly ealy stage that there are in fact, NO rights and wrongs on a universal scale, that is to say a scale above that of social imposition. This is pretty clear to anyone not of religious faith, since according to most atheists there is no higher consciousness than that of the collective society consciousness.
Lets talk first about what right and wrong are not:
- "Right" and "wrong" in this case are not synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect", though many make try to force that leap onto them. There are no correct moral choices, merely conforming ones and unconforming ones.
- "Right" and Wrong" are not synonymous with "Good" and "bad" and more than correct and incorrect (or for that matter "correct"/"good" or "incorrect"/"bad") this implies a value judgement which has its bases in society also, and are linked but not directly to these concepts.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not fixed points. This is to say that what was wrong yesterday may not be tomorrow.
- "Right" and wrong" do not exist in a vacuum. All of these judgements link to and affect others.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not FACTS. They are not measurable except by how many people state one preference or the other.
- "Right and wrong" are not synonymous with "lawful and unlawful" though there will be a large amount of cross pollination.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not binary answers. This is the great dumbing down method of the human brain. Most right or wrong feelings relate to the grey areas inbetween the two and the two words merely represent the ends of a single scale.
Lets take into account this example:
The law is being reappraised in regard to pleas available in murder cases, specifically those where one spouse has been murdered by the other. Please, if you are interested read the story and this commentary for more information. i am only looking at it from the point of view of this entry, not trying to judge it on its own merits.
It has been suggested and put forward that a defence should be available for those in fear of serious harm or physical danger from their partners should reduce what was previously a finding of murder to a finding of manslaughter.
Of course, this is a very big change in the interpretation of these laws (and is rumoured to be only for use in very rare cases) but is it "right" or "wrong" to make these changes?
- Most folks believe that killing someone else is wrong. But how wrong?
- "mitigating circumstances" frequently change people's perceptions of just how wrong killing is.
- Note I have used "killing" very deliberately instead of Murder or manslaughter.
I am not going to try and thrash out the whole murder/manslaughter debate here, since I only want to make a point so will try and be brief.
- This is a change of LAW, not of right and wrong. The change in the law does not alter the fundamental issues.
- This propsed change divides people, therefore whether you feel it is right or wrong will affect, but not define, whether you feel it is the "correct" move to make.
- Your views on this will be affected by your views on domestic violence, specifically the commensurate response to instances of violence. Is killing your partner excusable? You will access more than two or three right and wrong questions when working that out!
Right and wrong are not univfersal truths, just ask an atheist lady whether she thinks being forced to hide your face and walk behind your husband is "right" or "wrong" yet in many countries this is absolutely right.
So where do rights and wrongs come from, without God or religion?
Simple - the same places God and religions came from - SOCIETY.
Society is more than a group of people living together, it is a vast amalgam of people and families agreeing specifically on what is acceptable and what is not. Your laws are not fixed, nor are they unappeallable. They are falsehoods created to control, willingly I should add, those citizens who make up the society. A criminal is simply someone who for one reason or many has decided to violate the societies agreement on right and wrong and set out on their own.
A good example of this sort of thing is afforded by what are called sociopaths. They represent, because of mental illness, expose exactly what society's imposed law and "acceptable behviour" really are, voluntary arrangements between a government and its people - a sociopath is simply not able to buy into that voluntary arrangement and seeks only what is best for him/herself.
BUT! Are these people to be pitied for their crimes? I would say so, but I also feel, rightly or wrongly (see what I did there) a certain amount of envy that this behaviour (though not the folk who display it) is TRULY free while I remain bound by decades of conformist behaviour.
It follows from my logic here that a TRULY free society (practically impossible and horrifically awful it would be) is one where a permanent state of ANARCHY exists. Noone produces, noone owns anything and there is no law. YUCK!
So is freedom itself "right" or "wrong"?
Or when we talk of freedom are we really talking of freedom of choice between many types of captivity?
There's a question to mull over for you.
A
Posts
I think what you've conveniently pointed out in your discussion is the fact that 'right' and 'wrong' are not, in and of themselves, empirical values. They always have to be looked at in the context of a framework. In a western (or Christian) framework the concept of killing is deemed to be wrong regardless of whether the law states that it is or not (although in that case is it wrong for the state to kill someone through capital punishment?), whereas in the eastern (or Muslim) world, it is stated categorically that killing the infidel (or unbeliever) is not wrong (again, regardless of the underlying laws.
ReplyDeleteAs such what is 'right' for one is 'wrong' for another. In that context, a truly free society would still not be free because you would have factions who want their freedom to include the right to kill and other factions who would want the right to punish killers.
However one sparkling intellectual did say to me recently "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of idiots". So a logical conclusion to be drawn from that is that only wise men break the law and commit murder, incest and pedophilia, whereas all law abiding citizens are idiots. In the framework of a civilised, western society this is, quite plainly, wrong. You ask any of the young men on death row in the US who committed murder to fund a drug habit or to revenge a gang killing whether they consider themselves to be wise or not. I'm fairly sure they will say they aren't.
Which leads me to your ultimate question(s):
So is freedom itself "right" or "wrong"?
Or when we talk of freedom are we really talking of freedom of choice between many types of captivity?
I think looking at this in terms of captivity is doing a disservice to civilisation. We are civilised because we practice a form of social interaction that is governed by a framework of right and wrong. If we didn't have this we would be little different to a pride of lions or other predators - in other words animals. 'Progress' - in the sense of the evolutionary aspect - has created a set of frameworks in which we choose to live for the greater good of society. Those that choose to live outside our frameworks are universally disdained (terrorists, anyone...?) Ironically enough these frameworks give us a sense of freedom whilst actually restricting our freedoms. But this only happens up to a point. When society starts to impose a burden on that freedom we rebel (identity cards, speed cameras, CCTV surveillance...). We are, as you say, constricted in our freedom, but only to the point we want to be. After that it no longer becomes a freedom, but a restriction.
All in all, a good, logical summation of the points. Good post, Algo
Yeah.. maybe captivity was me falling into the old writers technique of presenting two polar opposites for greater impact.
ReplyDeleteThe phraseology is not meant to be an indictment of society, merely a statement of what it is - a set of voluntary restrictions.
I'm thinking yuor quotation was meant in jest, but it seems to be the thought process by which the elite in society bend the rules and don't feel bad about it.
Great response and thanks for your frequent posts, Gary! They're keeping me going...