Of Rights and Wrongs

One of the main points made by error theorists is that you can't know what's right or wrong. It seems hard to argue with this point, as we would have to assume some sort of absolute moral standard in order too judge a particular action as being either morally permissible or not. But just think about it for a moment; if there was such an absolute moral standard, who set it? The answer must surely be 'no-one'. So how could one hold up this supposed absolute morality against any given action without assuming some other form of morality?

Furthermore, if there is no absolute morality, how can we judge a particular action as being 'wrong'? We have to assume some sort of moral standard in order too make that judgement. So even if you claim that one should not steal because it's wrong, why do you think stealing is wrong? If someone asked me why I thought stealing was morally wrong (and they'd better not!), my response would be 'because everyone thinks so'. Without any other argument to support this view, the only thing I could say would be that people generally condemn thiefs. Just like the statement 'stealing is wrong' needs justification itself; so does its opposite - which has also been supported by many centuries of human experience.

But what about people who don't condemn stealing - are there not different moral standards across the globe? Well, yes there are, but we mustn't forget that certain actions have been deemed morally wrong by our society. I think it's safe to say that most of us agree open racism is wrong; and most of us feel very uncomfortable when someone steals something from a shop, even if they're poor. And yet at the same time we can see why some people do these things: such as being born into a family with little money and nowhere else to turn.

So can we say that stealing is wrong? We must imagine a situation in which no one would ever steal. This impossible scenario will never happen, as it's always possible for people to feel desperate enough to do what they normally consider morally wrong.

So what does this mean? Well, I think it means that we can never know for sure what is morally right or wrong. We must be open to the possibility of a hypothetical world in which nobody steals - just as we must be open to the possibility of a hypothetical world in which everyone steals.

Thinking about this for a moment will quickly show that it's impossible to say what is right or wrong. To claim 'x is morally wrong' is in itself a moral statement - and therefore needs justification. Of course, people can agree with each other on what they consider to be acceptable behaviour; but such agreements don't need supporting arguments as long as everyone accepts them.