True "Right"

I want to try and cover different angles and viewpoints on the topic of “right” and “wrong.” I will play the devil’s advocate as much as I can, in an attempt exhaust all plausible counter arguments.

First, it is quite relevant to talk about these things, especially in a religious context.  It is a topic that will stir up an enormous amount of controversy, and when discussed in relation to different people’s belief systems, inconsistencies will always arise. There will always be vast inconsistencies regarding how to approach and define it. Some believe that “right” and “wrong” don’t exist; some believe that they exist but are subject to change based on context or circumstance. Some believe there is an absolute “right,” and “wrong” is a perversion of right. Most believe that you can’t have “right” and “wrong” without a god of some sort, while some would argue that you can eliminate god and also have an innate sense of “right” and “wrong”. Some believe that we learned these moral constructs over millions of years watching our animal ancestors. Some believe we are given knowledge of “right” and “wrong” through our spirit, or soul. Some people believe that each person will discover their own version of “right” and “wrong” based on how circumstances affect them personally.  Is it fair to say that questions regarding right and wrong are relevant to religious discussions? I would say YES. It is also fair to say that, the way a person defines or approaches “right” and “wrong” is one of the key defining elements or tenets of their beliefs system.

Furthermore, to maintain a functioning society, we must come to a basic consensus about extreme acts of “wrong,” in order to judge and execute justice. We cannot live in a society where people have no repercussions for their actions. This is obvious. Every culture comes to a basic conclusion of how to deal with wrongs in some form or another. While cultures may not practice equal justice, it is known that every person has a longing for true and equal justice.

Every person has some sense that crimes and other kinds of social wrongdoing require a just consequence.  Although the details of each wrongdoing vary, and should be balanced and meted against relevant circumstances, real justice is ultimately “equal” to the offense committed (or else it is not truly just). Yet “equal” justice, whether penal or compensatory, requires universal laws in order to achieve equality in application. Universal laws don’t emerge randomly or by accident. Universal laws, and thus also equal justice, must come from a universal and just Lawgiver.

When our desire for equal justice through the application of universal laws is frustrated, this frustration is an indication of our sense that there is a lawgiver (and judge) above and beyond our society and culture (as well as all others). People throughout history have held the expectation that they will be judged after death. The timeless practice of recognizing injustices in this life, and expecting all injustices to be resolved hereafter by a truly equal justice, reveals an intuitive sense that a Supernatural Being whose universal justice, some day, will be carried out according to His universal laws.

For the sake of clarity on the matter, “Right” and “wrong” is synonymous with “good” and “bad.” “Good” and “bad” are descriptors that cannot exist without there first being a “right” and “wrong.”
 

I am going to start my discussion using various versions of right and wrong, based upon differing opinions. From these common varying premises of right and wrong, I will apply a fictitious version of a real life scenario in an effort to better articulate possible resulting outcomes and behaviors. It is important think about each belief structure in a real life context, and to dream up as many different possible scenarios (fictitious or real) to insure that hypotheses regarding right and wrong will stand up to the wide array of diverging human thought and interaction.

I will start with the most bizarre sounding hypotheses. (in my opinion)

 “Right” and “Wrong” do not exist.  We have only choices and actions that have outcomes. (common with atheists and those who believe there is no God)

In this example, the idea of right and wrong do not exist, but only a continuum of illusive choices exists, with varying outcomes. No act or choice can be viewed on a positive/negative scale. How would people interact under these premises? How would society function? Let’s explore. For example:

I decide I want to force my grown son to work for me for free indefinitely under some kind of modern bondage. I don’t let him leave my property. As a matter of fact, I think that I own him, and he does what I want him to do at all time. I want him to work for me because I do not work.

First, we must remember that we cannot define this act of slavery as bad or good. We can only look at the residual outcomes, or effects of the enslavement. The act itself has no intrinsic value. It is simply an act. Let’s say all the neighbors catch wind of my situation with my son, and they aren’t happy that I am keeping him from living a full life where he is free to make his own decisions. They think it is unjust… wait… This cannot happen, they cannot like or dislike, nor can the make a decision based on a polar scale.  Just by them saying they don’t like it, means they can imagine a better alternative. Thus, they are introducing a “right,” alternative. (What I am doing to my son would be not as good as what they propose.) They can only see what I do as choices with outcomes. They could certainly come to my house and kidnap my son, and take him to the city and set him free. They could also have a reason that did not include liking or disliking, or right and wrong. It would just happen because of circumstances that did not include morality. I could try to explain more of what this implausible world would be like but I think it would be best to use an example of something that we all know well. Imagine this present world, only without humans. All that exists is plants and animals.  Everything just eats, breeds, and survives. Animals have no repercussions for their actions; they do not answer to anyone for their behavior; they do not make choices based on the best ethical outcome; they don’t decide if what they are doing is “right” or “wrong,” or if it will have any negative or positive residual effects on others. The strong survive in this economy; the weak usually don’t. There is no such thing as animal rights among animals. You won’t see a lioness who has guilt and remorse because she didn’t let a foreign lioness from outside her clan eat the last available food source. (Even if the outsider somehow eventually died from starvation because of it) You may even see one lioness kill the other just for trying to snatch a bite of her food. If this lack of moral responsibility was a reality for human interaction, life would not be safe or pleasant on earth. The first person who figured out how to exterminate everyone else to benefit himself would do it. People would kill, rob, rape, pillage, and those who did it the most efficiently would survive.

I want to add: There will always be rare cases where animals do strange things that display some kind of hint that they have a moral compass. I would say, within a large and diverse enough sample size, you will have some of the most unexplainable things happening given enough time. Not that these rare cases should be viewed as an argument for ethical or moral behavior in animals, or classified as something other than a say a “herd instinct,” but just that improbabilities exist and strange things happen for reasons that we may not fully understand. Statistically speaking, aside from random accidents and events that we probably misclassify, animals do not display any level of thought or inner conscience about a “right” and “wrong,” or morality. This fact can be empirically studied, and controlled experiments can be done. Aside from hopeful beliefs, we have no evidence or proof that may tell us otherwise.

If humans were to adapt to the laws and behaviors of the animal kingdom, the result would be, complete chaos (compared to what now is reality). This made-up world where “right” and “wrong” does not exist, simply cannot be a reality for a human society, and it is certainly not the world we live in now.   

I want to add one more thought that will help us understand how complex human interaction can be, and how “right” and “wrong” are exercised on a daily basis. Think about the current U.S. justice system and the practice of law. Let’s say for example, back when you were in high school, you decide to study law. You quickly find out by talking to your career counselors, that this particular career is all about reading. You have to read, read, read. You have to study case law, law journals, past trials, new legislation, etc. The reason for all the studying and extra reading is in part because our current justice system is based in part on rulings of past cases. You will win court battles as a lawyer if you have excellent understanding of previous cases.  Case law works like this: (in a basic sense) If some bizarre dispute between two parties was decided a certain way in a previous case, then subsequent like cases will defer to rulings in those previous cases. The system is set up this way because there are always unique circumstances that require judgments to be made over moral “grey” areas between right and wrong. (This is pivotally where most religions disagree) There will always be circumstances that make the verdict even more difficult and complicated. We use case law to help reach a verdict and save time in these unique cases. We now start to see that there is always a situation where justice needs to be served, but all parties are not in agreement. Not just disagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but between the jury, judge, and the general public they represent. It is of the utmost importance that our hypotheses regarding right and wrong be applicable to all people and circumstances. If they are weak, the hypotheses will be exploited and torn apart by the amazing complexity of human interaction. People won’t have to try to tear them apart; they will just tear themselves apart over time when people disagree. When a person, or group practices weak, or flawed premises regarding “right” and “wrong” (to the fullest extent) human “rights” are always violated. This can lead to lethal violations of human life. This has happened in history for thousands of years. Atrocities are committed by people who claim they know what true “right” is. Hitler and the holocaust is a good example this, or Muslims and the act of jihad.

Ok, let’s move on to the next version of how some humans classify “right” and “wrong.” Let’s say:

“Right” and “wrong” exist only in the individual. That is, the individual will discern what is “right” and “wrong.” The standard is your/his/her life. On an individual basis, you are morally right to act in ways that enhance your own life and morally wrong to act in ways that destroy it. Each person must sift through everything he has learned, and knows, and makes his/ her own moral judgment. In this case we won’t include a “supernatural force” as an influence.

I am going to use virtually the same example that I used in the previous scenario.

I force my son to work for me indefinitely under some kind of modern bondage. I don’t let him leave my property. I think that I own him, and he does what I want him to do at all time.

My neighbors somehow find out what I am doing, and they are not happy. They are outraged. They believe that he should not be my slave, because they think slavery is wrong. They think that it would be better for him to be free than in slavery. They call the local authorities, who quickly respond, but not how my neighbors expected. They explain that slavery is common, and many people choose to enslave their children in this area. They continue to explain that the local government passed a majority vote that led to legalized immediate family slavery. (I am assuming the population in this fictitious world had come to a consensus on some basic laws. The majority of individuals that share common ideas of “right” and “wrong” become the ultimate authority.) The local government came to the conclusion that the benefits of slavery to the owner outweigh the social aspects. The authorities leave without doing anything. My neighbors are even more outraged. They decided to take matters in their own hands to remedy the situation. They decide, out of the idea that they are doing something “right,” that they must set my son free from bondage. So they kidnap my son and plan to set him free. To their dismay, when they kidnap him, and take him away, they discover that he wants to go back home! My son is so used to being my slave, that he is ok with it. He thinks it is the “right” way. It is the only way he knows. He knows that he has to be patient and wait until I die, and then he will take my place as the free master. My neighbors begin to realize that this is an impossible situation, and when my son has kids, they will probably behave the same way. To take this fictitious scenario one step further, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that I physically beat my son when he doesn’t do things the way I want them done. My neighbors are even more horrified when they realize this. I surely don’t think there is a problem with it. I was beaten when I was a slave. In my mind it makes you a better master if you endure hardship as a slave. I think it is “right.”  I have seen my cousins and their unruly slave children. They didn’t beat their kids properly, and that is probably why they are always trying to run away. If only my cousins tied their children up. I find that it works best when my children are tied up. I think this produces sound bravery and courage in them. They will grow up strong, and will be able to overcome any hardship that may fall on them in life. In this way, I am showing them my way of “right”, because I am training them the way I think is best for them. If they are not strong, they may not have the quality of life that I think they deserve. My neighbors don’t even have children. What do they know? I guess they moved from another culture where women walk around uncovered. No wonder they are so far off the deep end. Well, I want to be a good example to them so I am going to bring them a gift, and show them I love them in spite of our differences.  

In this scenario, all things are logical under the premises that I began with. But before we go back and analyze what just went on, I want to add one generally understood belief. I want to discuss, how love can play a part in all of this. I think that it should be understood, that in order to have true love, it must come from someone who has knowledge of true “right.” If that person or being didn’t have knowledge of true “right,” how could he know if the love he gave was truly the “right” kind of love? That is, love that is of pure or “right” motives. True “right” and true love are synonymous with each other, and dependant on one another.  Love is a more personal act that stems from “true” right. It is an expression born out of true “right.” The act of love with pure motives is not possible if it is born out of a “right” that is tainted, or not truly “right.” Perfect love, is not possible unless it is from a source that is perfect love. 

So, with that in mind, you could say that a form of love was shown from different people. (They were expressing their version of “right” love.) From my current perspective (not in the make-believe world) each was a form of selfish love. While each actor may have thought that their love was sincere, each person was showing love in a way that satisfied their own belief system. In this make-believe scenario, the person representing me thought that he was truly showing his children love. One could argue that he was exploiting them for his own benefit, and therefore showing a self centered or sociopathic type of love. One might argue that the “neighbors” were showing real love by trying to free the son, even though the son didn’t want to leave. They were banking on the fact that the son would (eventually in time) thank the neighbors for his new found freedom. Maybe they were showing true love. Maybe the father of the children was showing true love. Who are the neighbors to say that slavery in this case was bad? According to one person, it could be characterized as “right,” according to another - “wrong.” On the outset, we have learned that everyone will have a way that seems right in his own eyes, but is it true “right?” Can we even know?

I think we have already read too much into this. This whole situation is more like a “red herring.” If we didn’t have an outside force, or origination of a moral right, we couldn’t draw conclusions about anything regarding another person and his or her actions / choices. The neighbors couldn’t be upset at the situation because they have no basis or benchmark from which to weigh a better situation against.  We have no source to glean any sense of moral responsibility from. We did not learn it from the “evolution” of plants and animals. If you think we did, please make a case for it. Many have tried, but their cases always lack evidence, plausibility and explanatory power. (We could now enter into a discussion about the credibility of evolution as an explanation of human origins, but even if you could argue it to be true, it would still not adequately support the idea that we have a moral compass by learning it from less evolved creatures.) If the “neighbors” in our make-believe scenario are basing their knowledge of slavery from examples of slavery in other families they have witnessed in the past, (and can therefore make a judgment call based on outcomes of those past experiences), they are still placing their interpretation of those experiences in a position of authority above the other person’s - Therefore claiming that their “right” is the “right” the other party should adhere to. This contradicts our original premises for this scenario. 

Ok, Let us go one step further and introduce a supernatural force, or “god” into the scenario we just discussed. Let’s keep the emphasis on the “self/individual” for interpreting “right” and “wrong,” and discredit all worldviews and religions who claim to possess the only keys to the true definition of “right.” The individual can somehow contact a “force/god” but does not use any religion or worldviews as a singular bias in his interpretation of “right” and “wrong” Let us redefine our premises and begin to explore further.

“Right” and “wrong” exists in the individual. “Right” and “Wrong” also exists in a god/force/supernatural being. The individual will discern what is right and wrong. The standard is your/his/her life. Everyone decides where their choices or acts fall on the right and wrong continuum. Each person’s idea of right and wrong may be influenced by a god/force/supernatural being. No religion contains the true “right,” so the discernment of “right” and “wrong” in the individual must not come from a singular religious document or structured fundamental religious belief system.  

So, what happens now to our make-believe scenario if we apply these premises? The actors will still hold firm that what they believe is “right” is truly “right.”  Only in this case, the conviction is greater in each individual, because they are claiming a supernatural source as an influence or basis of “right.” The “right” in each individual still may not be any closer to true “right” than it was in the last scenario. Each actor/player may have explanations for his convictions that include detailed accounts of supernatural encounters where they received knowledge of true “right.” Of course, what the supernatural force told them was true will probably be different in each player (Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, etc.) Which one has the true knowledge of “right” and “wrong”? Neither actor is using a singular structured belief system from which to convince the other party that he is in authority. Also, neither party has tangible evidence that they have the supreme truth. They are both skeptical of the one another’s beliefs. All they can do is have faith that what their neighbor says is ultimately the truth, really is. This is improbable because both neighbors are from different cultures and have different ways of expressing love, and both actors have different ideas of what “good” or “right” fruit is. If each person has a different idea of what true “right” is, then they certainly will not agree on what “right” or “good” fruit is. (Fruit would be classified as acts/characteristics/attributes born out of true “right”) So here the actors sit, no more convinced of one another’s beliefs. Each person is doing what is “right” based on what he/she thinks is right.

Because it seems relevant at this time, I want to include the definition of a sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

A sociopath is someone who manipulates others around him for his own benefit. To give the sociopath credit, can we really blame him for serving only himself under this type of belief system? After all, if he believes he is “right” should others doubt him? If everyone is receiving their definition of what is “right” individually, why should they hold any one person’s interpretation of “right” in authority? The Sociopath doesn’t have any reason to put others needs first unless it somehow benefited him/her. Additionally, he has no way to convince others that what he believes is “right.” People will never share one another’s consciousness or inner motivations. We can’t know if what our neighbor really has pure motives without being inside his mind and spirit. Since we cannot do this, we have to take his word for it, or examine how he lives his life. (Even intense examination and scrutiny can’t undoubtedly tell us his motivation) Furthermore, the “neighbor” can’t know what is truly right unless he is 100% positive that his supernatural encounters were from a benevolent, loving, peaceable, 100% right, supernatural force.  I am going to play the devil’s advocate again, and suggest that maybe some people’s influence of “right” and “wrong” is from a force that doesn’t love, and who isn’t peaceable, and 100% “right.” Or “good” Maybe the supernatural influence they are getting is from a perversion of the real true “right”. Even still, the neighbors would have to be able convince others of their absolute certainty on the matter. Now, increasing the angle of this slippery slope… unless you had proof (that you could show others) from a force/god, that “benevolence,” “love,” and “peace,” were attributes that you should strive to attain, you wouldn’t know if what you were told when you had an “encounter” had any positive moral value to begin with! In this case, the cart is being placed before the horse. The effect is before the cause. You can’t know if what you received during an encounter is what you ought to strive for if you didn’t have a basis from which to classify what things “ought to be” first. Under the premises that we applied to this scenario, an individual shouldn’t have to talk to his neighbor about what the neighbor believes to be true, because “right” and “wrong” is determined in the individual (however the individual got it), not collectively, or collaboratively among people. The neighbors influence should not interfere with the individual’s true “right,” and logically should not be included. If it was included, then it shouldn’t have any bearing on the individual’s definition of “right” and “wrong.” We could change our premises to say, “Right” and “wrong” are determined by the collective interests of a people group, but I think this would make matters even stickier than they are.

What can we derive from all of this thus far? Let’s make a list of things we now know to be true, based on what we have read. Some of these things are inferred, and based on deductive reasoning: We know that a person’s expression of love may not be interpreted as love with pure motives, regardless of whether or not it truly is. We know that a person can’t really know if another person is expressing true selfless love born of pure motives. The real “goodness” or “badness” of a person’s actions cannot be understood by another person.  “Right” and “wrong” are not definable without a preset moral foundation. The true definition of “Right” can only come from a force that is truly 100% “right.” “Right” and “wrong” are not definable by averaging or finding commonalities between worldviews or religions. Without moral guidelines that originate from outside our known human existence, “right” and “wrong” do not exist. Animals do not know morality, and cannot articulate a moral “right” from “wrong.” Apart from those who agree they can’t act in a way that is truly “right” without divine intervention, people generally believe that their way is true “right.” Society will never have peace and order using only moral guidelines that were established by the individual, unless there is no social interaction. (If a person was alone on a desert island, there would be no social interaction. It would only be important if his behaviors were not self destructive. In this case, right and wrong are more associated with survival, and not collective needs.) Society will never have peace and order using only moral guidelines that are based on the consensus of individual needs. Moral order or justice must be upheld in a society, or humans’ destructive tendencies will tear the society apart.

On many different levels, all of the premises that I have attempted to explain using a fictitious environment, do not work for a peaceable and loving society on earth. So, how can we construct premises that do work? Let’s examine first what we know about mortal humans: We know that people engage in self destructive behavior. People have varying views on “right” and “wrong.” People somehow have a sense that certain behaviors are not good, and certain behaviors are good.  They do not know where this sense comes from, but most people agree we have it. (Not a perfect sense, but a general sense) Different cultures have different ideas of “right” and “wrong.” Among cultures, fundamental differences in right and wrong lead to wars, fighting, death, and destruction. Humans’ varying opinions regarding “right” and “wrong” do not lead to a more orderly society. Humans’ differences in art and culture often enhance society, but when fundamental differences in “right” and “wrong” clash, it is extremely harmful to societies. A mortal human cannot have perfect morality in his life, and therefore cannot be the sole discerner of what is “right” or “wrong.” People desperately crave equal justice for wrongdoings and inequalities.

So, with all of this in mind, let us try to re-establish our premises one last time, and revisit our scenario: Only this time, I would like to establish the premises of “right” and “wrong” based on pre set guidelines.

True “right” exists only in the God of the Bible. The individual alone cannot know or achieve perfect morality or true “right”.  The true guidelines for perfect morality or “right” are God and were spoken by Him and written by Him (through men by His Spirit), and have always been in existence. God is accessible to all through His Word and prayer, and His Word discerns our thoughts and intentions. All individuals have fallen short of true “right.”

Using this system, let us look again at our scenario. What changes? Firstly, the father would realize that what he thought was right, may not actually be the true right. If he knew about these premises before he had children, he would choose in advance to raise them according to the methods that God’s Word specifies. If he didn’t know about these premises, then his “neighbors” who did know, would point him to God’s guidelines in His Word. They would do this out of love for him, demonstrated to them in God’s Word. The father would never trust his own judgment, but rest in the fact that God and His Word will do the judging and the discerning of all things. He would be diligent to learn what God’s Word tells him, realizing his humble position under God’s authority. He would not have the true “right” answers without God, and his perception of “right” and “wrong” on his own would probably be flawed and fallen short of true “right.” He would bow before the One who is in true authority.

If God is not being glorified in all of our ways, we are choosing to put our discernment of “right” above His perfect will for us. If we put God’s Word in our hearts, and use it as an instruction manual for life, we will be able to withstand the snares of evil and keep ourselves from sin, (doing “wrongs”) against God.

Here are some perfect guidelines for people from God’s perfect Word:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  2 Timothy 3:16  

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

For the Word of the LORD is right, And all His work is done in truth. He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. Psalm 33:4-5

All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits. Proverbs 16:2

Honest weights and scales are the LORD's; All the weights in the bag are His work. Proverbs 16:11

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts.  Proverbs 21:2

Rom 3:19-31 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,  even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all [fn] who believe. For there is no difference;  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,  to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.  Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.  Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 

Psalm 119:10-12  With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.   Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.  Blessed [art] thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 

1John 4:15-21 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.  And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.  Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.  There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.  We love Him [fn] because He first loved us. If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can [fn] he love God whom he has not seen?  And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.