From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Absolute Right and Wrong (was: Re: Tolerance of Others)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:30:26 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec2.173441.12740@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

>{I've set the follow ups to talk.religion.misc}

>This has been an interesting conversation.  

>Some have pointed out that apparent absolutes get fuzzy in specific
>cases.  The cases typically cited are unusual and infrequent ones.  
>Nevertheless, the intention is good, which is to show that these absolutes 
>I am proposing are not always so clear.  For instance, is it ok to end 
>someone's life who is in the process of trying to end someone else's life?
>Because each circumstance is unique, things are not always clear at first
>glance.

>With this, let me now point out some interesting facts.  As acknowledged
>in the discussion to this point, it is mutually agreed upon that we all
>have a sense of right and wrong within in us.  

I think I will play devil's advocate here, and challenge this assumption.

Let me propose that good and wrong are not innate characteristics,
but rather learned behaviors that we aquire as part of our socialization. 
I think it is evident that we are social beasts, and that there are
certain innate responses that we exhibit, such as the tendancy to
exhibit a "pecking order" in our interactions. While it is possible to
use the labels "right" and "wrong" to describe those innate characteristics,
I don't think this is what you are talking about here because many of
the things we label as right and wrong actually go against our basic
natures. Sexual restraint, to provide one example.

>Some have argued that what
>is right for one may not be right for another.  Neverthless, it is 
>observed that within us is a sense of right and wrong.  Even within those
>who do not want to be bound by rules or regulations it is present in an
>inner conviction.  Janis said that she does not need a book to tell her
>certain things are wrong, like stealing.  I assume she is referring to
>the Bible ("Thou shall not steal").  I agree with her and this is my
>point.  The knowledge of this wrong is already within us.  As a side 
>point, I don't think the value of these "Thou shall"'s or "Thall shall
>not"'s in the Bible is to tell us what we already know but to tell
>*where* these absolutes come from. It's value is not so much in telling
>us what is right and wrong but in telling us what the source of this 
>right and wrong is.

All of these examples easily fall within the realm of social imprinting.
While the characteristic of imprinability may be innate, the particular
examples are not.

>The next fact is that we do not live up to our own sense of right and
>wrong.  For instance, it may be that one's own sense says not to harm
>others.  Yet, when in an irritable mood we may lash out and emotionally
>wound another, even a loved one, unintentionally.  And we thus violate
>our own sense of right and wrong.  It happens all the time.  We usually
>regret our action after the fact and say to ourself "what got into me?".

This provides an excelent argument against your contention of an innate
knowledge of right and wrong. I would argue that the example you have
provided shows that "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes, but learned
(and thus subjective in nature) behavior.

>So a couple questions come up that we have to answer.  First, why do we
>have a sense of right and wrong in us in the first place?  Especially
>when at times one might wish they didn't have this inner knowledge; like 
>after we do something that is wrong and we regret it. Next, why do we violate 
>our own sense of right and wrong?  And last, where does this inner knowledge 
>of right and wrong come from?

Perhaps you should address my argument before venturing further with
what may be a failed hypothesis.

>God bless you all,
>
>John

Eric