I just looked up evil on Wiktionary. It said evil means:

1. Intending to harm; malevolent.
2. Morally corrupt.
3. Unpleasant.

When I wrote this post I was thinking of evil as an independent force that influences people. I do believe that Hitler does meet this definition of evil, but I don’t think he was under the influence of Evil. 

Do you fear that things like rape, incest and torture will become acceptable without the existence of religion to suppress certain types of immorality? Even if there is an “objective morality” people still hurt each other. People still disagree over how people should behave. Even if there is no objective morality people still can be kind and generous toward each other.

What is interesting about the objective morality idea is that, in a way, objective moralists are saying that moral relativists have no reason to be moral, which I believe to be false. It also gives believers the idea that if they stop believing in God, they don’t have to be moral. I think it is in the interest of believers to keep morality within the domain of religion. If people realize that they don’t have to believe in God to be moral then that is one less reason to cling to religion.

Option 1: Each person decides what’s right and wrong.

You say…”But, if each person decides what is right and wrong for himself, then no one person could ever say another person is wrong.”

I say, so what? No one lives in isolation and is responsible for judging what’s right and wrong for everyone else. We live in societies and have to adapt our behaviors to make society work. To co-exist peacefully some people will sometimes have to accept things that they find morally wrong.

Ultimately, this option is what is correct. Everyone decides for themselves what is right or wrong. But how they deal with that fact to live in society is a different matter.

Option 2: Societies determine what’s right and wrong.

You set up a syllogism and concluded “3) Therefore, racism or incest are right. Now, we both agree that this conclusion is false…” We only both agree those things are wrong because the society we live in deems it so. I think Honor Killing is wrong but if I grew up and lived in the Middle East, I’m sure my views would be different.

Option 3: The people of the planet decides what’s right and wrong.

You imply this would lead to some draconian existence in which the majority force their beliefs on the minority. This is mistaken. As I said above, the minority can change the opinion of the majority through evidence and perseverance. They derive their sense of what is right or wrong within themselves and try to persuade others.

All 3 options can exist simultaneously.

An alternative you miss is perhaps even more compelling.

Option 4: There is an inherent right & wrong existing separate from humans which can be illuminated through experimentation & data collection.

This is science. The truths determined from the scientific method are independent of personal opinion. What’s right and what’s wrong is eventually vetted out by experiment.

Bobmo, I would suggest that you provide no alternative that isn’t covered in one of the first 3 alternatives. What is your basis for determining what is right or wrong?

If things are just inherently right or wrong, how does one come to know what these things are?

Through the Bible? No. The interpretation of this document changes over the years and is just a matter of the opinion of the person reading and interpreting it.

Through God? And how does god get her message to the masses? Through some person who could just be lying or misinterpreting what they heard. In any case, it’s still just a person’s opinion about what is right or wrong.

If this inherent rightness or wrongness exists, how does one figure out what it is?

I would not want to spend my last days in a concentration camp.

So, which of Perry’s three alternatives is correct?

If two people disagree about what is right and wrong they they can just agree to do disagree, take their disagreement to arbitration or beat each other up. Or one person can change her mind and come to an agreement.

By the way, when I say “Darwinian evolution” I simply mean the concept of Natural Selection as articulated by Darwin. I was using the term in the same way I would refer to Euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics.

As to who determines right and wrong, you’ve presented three, mutually exclusive, alternatives:

1) Each person decides for himself what is right and wrong.

You said earlier that “Hitler was wrong because inside my brain I judge that to be the case…” This implies that you personally decide what is right and wrong. But, if each person decides what is right and wrong for himself, then no one person could ever say another person is wrong.

2) Each society determines what is right and wrong.

In your comment to http://dedwarmo.com/2008/07/09/why-be-moral/ you implied that morality is a societal convention. You said, “What is wrong with a democratic code of morality?” Well, there is plenty wrong with it. If the majority in a society determines what is right and wrong, then no society can ever be wrong, nor can any society ever condemn any other society. Hitler gets a pass.

But, to quote Ravi Zacharias, “In some cultures they love their neighbors. In others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?”

To put it in the form of a syllogism:

1) Each society decides what is right and wrong.
2) A particular society decides that racism or incest are right.
3) Therefore, racism or incest are right.

Now, we both agree that this conclusion is false, but to prove it, you must demonstrate that either A) One of the premises is false, or B) Although both premises are true, the conclusion is invalid. I would argue that premise #1 is false.

3) The majority of humans on planet earth decides what is right and wrong.

To continue your quote from earlier, you implied that Hitler was wrong because, additionally, “the majority of humanity [judges that to be the case.] But on what basis is the majority always right? This means that someday it would be morally right to force people to convert to a particular religion or face death, simply because that religion amounted to > 50% of the world’s population.

This also means that you believe it’s always right for the majority of humans to force their views on the minority, regardless of what those views are. I don’t think you believe that.

So you have presented three, mutually exclusive, alternatives. They can’t all be right, because each one of these contradicts the other two. Which one do you choose?

I really don’t see how Hitler latching on to survival or the fittest has anything to do with anything. Deranged people will latch on to any idea from anywhere that supports what they want to believe. Is all of Islam dammed because some believe suicide bombing will deliver them 7 virgins in heaven?

In an evolutionary sense, the concept of the strong killing the weak has been consistently shown to be inferior for species survival. Species & populations that don’t kill off all the weaker members actually do better (in a species propagation sense) than ones that do. In that sense what Hitler did was wrong. By reducing the number & genetic variability of humans, he reduced the human’s ability to adapt to changing environments, reduced the potential for maximum species propagation and was doing something that was wrong.

And from a purely human mind standpoint, the majority of people have a conscious that tells them what he did was wrong. Unless there is some compelling argument that explains why he wasn’t wrong, why would you believe any different?

Hitler was wrong because inside my brain I judge that to be the case, as does the majority of humanity. And he will remain wrong unless the minority of people can present a compelling case as to why he wasn’t. The concepts of right or wrong do not exist outside our brains.

Unfortunately, I don’t know what you mean by “the Jews did not have the right not to be exterminated by Hitler?” so I can’t answer.