Are actions morally right without scientific proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roxy
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the question of whether actions can be considered morally right without scientific proof, exploring the roles of God and society in defining morality. It encompasses philosophical reasoning, ethical considerations, and societal influences on moral judgments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that definitions of "right" can vary significantly, depending on cultural, religious, or personal beliefs.
  • One participant argues that historical perspectives on morality, such as the acceptance of slavery, illustrate that moral definitions are not absolute and can change over time.
  • Another viewpoint posits that society ultimately decides what is considered "right," as it exerts pressure on individuals to conform to certain behaviors.
  • Some participants contend that the concept of "God" is intertwined with societal norms, questioning whether divine morality is distinct from societal morality.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of power in defining morality, with some arguing that those who hold power influence what is deemed "good" or "bad."
  • One participant raises the idea that truths about morality may be linked to personal power rather than inherent goodness.
  • Another participant asserts that neither God nor society can dictate moral truths in the same way that scientific laws are established.
  • There is a suggestion that the existence of moral laws has not been proven, similar to the status of physical laws, which are based on theories rather than absolute truths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether morality is defined by God, society, or personal interpretation. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the nature of morality and its foundations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions of morality and the influence of historical context on moral judgments. There are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between power and the perception of moral truths.

Roxy
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
God or society says they are right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess there are many ways to define right. This kind of discussion depends on very defined terms. Do you define right as good? Or is it not sinning? Different religions say certain actions are right or wrong, and different societies agree or disagree with parts of them. I personally believe that aboslute right or wrongs cannot be proven and that it is up to each person to define what is good.

Example. A long time ago it was "right" to have slavery. Preachers would have condoned it. They would tell you God agrees with slavery. Now, most of us are against slavery. This is a good example of showing that the "right" thing changes from time and that it is not so absolute.

What are your thoughts?
 
Roxy said:
God or society says they are right?

Isn't "God" just another part of the "society" that accepts Him? Either way, society will decide what "right" is simply because society is the only thing that can put pressure on you to behave a certain way or not.

However, if God has already decided what is "right" and what is "wrong", and if He's really "God" in the usual sense (and thus the most important part of any society), then He quite likely has the power to "pressure" you to behave one way or the other.

Note: "Pressure" doesn't mean "coerce" or "force" or anything like that. It means that you get good results from doing one thing ("good", here, means "favorable to you") and bad results from doing the opposite.
 
Roxy said:
God or society says they are right?

No, they are not.
 
Jameson said:
Example. A long time ago it was "right" to have slavery. Preachers would have condoned it. They would tell you God agrees with slavery. Now, most of us are against slavery. This is a good example of showing that the "right" thing changes from time and that it is not so absolute.

What that shows us, is that the "right" thing is only defined according to the times. Right or wrong are not phenomena, they are an invention. There is no right or wrong thing, since it is not so much that the "right" thing changes - but only our definition of it.
 
Mentat said:
However, if God has already decided what is "right" and what is "wrong", and if He's really "God" in the usual sense (and thus the most important part of any society), then He quite likely has the power to "pressure" you to behave one way or the other.

Note: "Pressure" doesn't mean "coerce" or "force" or anything like that. It means that you get good results from doing one thing ("good", here, means "favorable to you") and bad results from doing the opposite.

The ability to decide what is right or wrong doesn't make it necessary that the thing wielding that ability has the power to do so.

But you have almost hit the mark - POWER will define what people will follow and think is good or bad. Thus, anyone who has truthfully found a "good" realizes that he has been seduced by its power, not because of it's "inherent" goodness.
 
Last edited:
GeD said:
The ability to decide what is right or wrong doesn't make it necessary that the thing wielding that ability has the power to do so.

But you have almost hit the mark - POWER will define what people will follow and think is good or bad. Thus, anyone who has truthfully found a "good" realizes that he has been seduced by its power, not because of it's "inherent" goodness.

This is somewhat reminiscent of Euthyphro, but expound a bit on the concept of being "seduced by the power of a true good".
 
It's simply that people usually follow/believe "truths" that increase their own power (ie. their influence over people/world around them and their freedom of action). It is not the case that somehow things are inherently in the "good category" or "bad category", simply because we or someone has labeled them that way.

It's better to realize that truths are about gaining/maintaining personal power (which involves not only influence, but also of personal freedom to act).
 
  • #10
Roxy said:
God or society says they are right?

Neither. Similarly to how neither "god" not society can decide the laws of physics (because they are fact, not opinion), I dont' believe that the ethics of a situation can be decreed.
 
  • #11
Not that we've proven that there are actual laws of physics - only theories which seem to predict and mimic phenomena.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Can scientific papers be made at home and only by searching on the internet?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Is morality partially derived from authority?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
MHB Brokenness of Scientific Method: Up to Half of Papers May Be Wrong
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
A short proof of the Poincare Lemma
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
526
A righteous atheist is morally superior to a righteous theist
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Differences between left vs right actions in some group theory questions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Problem of Absolute Morality in Religion: Can God Change Moral Rules?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Is Atheism Compatible with Natural Rights?
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
27K