Why do we say things like molesting a child, murder, violations of property rights, illegal parking, drug use, etc. are wrong? There seems to be a difference between some of things I listed. For example I think most people would agree that molesting a child is wrong, but you would find less people that would say drug use is wrong. However, do we say that molesting a child is wrong for different reasons than drug use or illegal parking? Is there an underlying logic or simple reason humans label something as wrong? Why did humans choose to label somethings as wrong but not others?
I would like to leave God out of this discussion. There is no need to leave religion out, but you would still have to say why humans choose to make things wrong in their religions.
Children who park illegally should be molested! Shouldn’t even be driving at all, the goddamn little scofflaw punks! They deserve nothing but a big, hot, throbbing [REMAINDER OF POST WITHDRAWN ON LEGAL ADVICE]
I’d assume the idea of right and wrong was based on harm before religion took it over. Most things that are wrong are harmfull either directly or indirectly. Drug abuse can harm the user and their loved ones.
I am a liberal Atheist, but like all the others I still have firm ideas of right and wrong.
Most of the concept of right and wrong is instinctive. We’re social animals, and millions of years of evolution have molded our brains to think favourably of other humans who are cooperative, and badly of other humans who are not cooperative.
Another human who hurts children is instinctively viewed as being EXTREMELY bad for the group, because protecting children is important for the continued survival of the species. So we’re evolutionarily (is that a word?) hard-wired to think very badly of humans who harm children.
Illegal parking is a bit further removed from our evolution, but then, we don’t feel nearly as strongly about it. However, it still goes back to the notion that we favour behaviour that cooperates with the group, rather than behaviour that disrupts the group.
Well, wait a minute . . . what are we defining as a “child?”
Remember that in many other civilizations throughout our history, there was nothing wrong with having sex with children, so I doubt if there’s much of an evolutionary prohibition against it.
Actually, there is not a single universal taboo-- one act which every culture agrees is wrong. (Unless, of course, you count prohibitions against anti-social behavior.)
Heck, simplify the eligibility to anyone who has been an American citizen for 35 years. Native-borns become eligible at age 35. Children born to American parents are American citizens, even if their mothers happen to deliver on foreign soil, so they’d be eligible, too. Schwarzenegger would become eligible in 2019, just in time to deal with the replicant crisis.
I suppose as already mentioned, it is an extention of our natural instincts for self preservation and preservation of the species. Basically stuff that is harmfull or unpleasent is “bad”. Stuff that is helpful is “good”.
And then there are practical rules just designed to help society work more efficiently. For example, you are not allowed to park illegally because certain areas are either designated as spots belonging to people who actually live in the neighborhood, there is a safety issue (like a fire hydrant), or parking would cause an obstruction to traffic.
Oh I think it’s still relevent to a discussion on murdering, molesting and illegal parking.
I suspect that cultures which permitted adults to have sexual relations with young children (if they existed) did not believe that the sexual relationships harmed the children, so any evolved program against harming children wouldn’t kick in. Our culture, on the other hand, believes that sex is harmful to children. Indeed, we are inclined to believe that sex is harmful for all people in all cases until proven otherwise. Therefore, our but-think-of-the-children subroutine does get activated by child molesters.
There are different reasons why things are called wrong.
(1) Victimizing someone is wrong, whether this is assault, murder, molestation, or theft.
(2) Creating a potential danger to others is wrong, since this is potentially victimizing that person (for example, parking in a fire lane or running a red light).
(3) The government wants your money, so denying them money is wrong (for example, not paying the parking meter or not paying your taxes). Hmmm, actually, I can’t really support the concept of denying the government money as being too wrong, but I also wouldn’t argue the point with a police officer who is unlikely to be willing to discuss (and change his opinion about) the concepts of right and wrong.
(4) And then there are the other things that aren’t really wrong, but are called wrong just because the legislators call them wrong so that the religious fanatics (or herd-mentality voters who want politicians to be “tough on crime” no matter what the cost in civil liberties) will be satisfied. (For example, drug use (other than the societally-approved nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, and so on), prostitution, etc.)
Some things aren’t innately wrong, but people will stop you from doing them because they find it irritating: Don’t park in my spot, you’re in my way! It’s not necessarily morality, it’s territoriality. But one could have a moral theory that respects territory (& probably should). It’s just not absolutely wrong, like, oh, buggery .
.