What is right and wrong? Who defines it? Is it absolute (universal) or relative i.e. changing with community, culture, time, etc?
Where do the notions of right and wrong come from? They may come from one’s own conscience or from the society at large. The feeling that comes from the conscience is basically based on one’s moral values which are once again determined by the society, or are they?!
Let us look at the following examples:
The sacrificing of animals to appease the gods was prevalent to a large degree in the past. It was considered as one of the top notch forms of prayer. Now the sacrificing of animals is deemed to be wrong.
Earlier Sati was deemed to be a sacred Hindu ceremony with the wife willingly jumping into the fire at her husband’s cremation. Now it is deemed to be wrong.
Vegetarians say killing any animal to eat it is wrong.
There is still a huge debate going on as to whether stem cell research is ethical or not. Different societies have different views on the morality of abortion. Some societies consider pre-marital sexual relations to be wrong.
There are countless examples between communities in the present whose views differ greatly on whether certain practices are right or wrong. There are also countless examples which show that practices that were considered right in a community/religion in the past are now recognized as being wrong. So why does this concept of right and wrong differ greatly over time and culture?
Now let me put this question to you: If you are stuck on an island, all the edible food has been consumed and the only option left for survival is to kill and eat your colleagues, then is it right to kill the person next to you or is it right to knowingly let yourself starve to death. Similarly, is it right to kill a man in self defense (note that killing in self defense doesn’t carry any penalty according to the judicial system)?
Now we have come to the point where we are more inclined to say that an act can’t be deemed right or wrong without looking at the intention behind the act. Also, people’s views on whether an act is right or wrong may differ from community to community and may change over time.
So what exactly is universal about right and wrong in this dynamic and ever changing world? It is the intention behind an action that makes it wrong. Any act done with the intention of harming the other person (pure malice) is wrong. Evil intent is wrong. There is no society in this world that doesn’t consider acts spurred by such intentions to be wrong. Thus, right and wrong changes with how a specific person looks at the situation (thus the debate on whether some stuff is ethical or not). Furthermore, as we get more information, our perception of right and wrong may change (changes of perception over time).
Now let us look at a complete anarchy without any law and order. No laws have been laid down and nobody is ever officially punished. There is no semblance of a civilized society. In such a situation, do right and wrong exist (do they hold any meaning whatsoever)? If so, then who defines and upholds them? Is it not one’s own conscience?!
Lastly I would like to make a statement: “A person is always right unless he is convinced otherwise.” If a person considers some act to be right, unless he is convinced otherwise, he will deem it to be right even if he is crucified for it. With respect to him, what he thinks is right will be right for him to do unless convinced otherwise. There is no use punishing a man without making him realise that the act he is being punished for is indeed wrong.
If you are the last human left on earth, then who is to say whether you are right or wrong except your own conscience.
Where do the notions of right and wrong come from? They may come from one’s own conscience or from the society at large. The feeling that comes from the conscience is basically based on one’s moral values which are once again determined by the society, or are they?!
Let us look at the following examples:
The sacrificing of animals to appease the gods was prevalent to a large degree in the past. It was considered as one of the top notch forms of prayer. Now the sacrificing of animals is deemed to be wrong.
Earlier Sati was deemed to be a sacred Hindu ceremony with the wife willingly jumping into the fire at her husband’s cremation. Now it is deemed to be wrong.
Vegetarians say killing any animal to eat it is wrong.
There is still a huge debate going on as to whether stem cell research is ethical or not. Different societies have different views on the morality of abortion. Some societies consider pre-marital sexual relations to be wrong.
There are countless examples between communities in the present whose views differ greatly on whether certain practices are right or wrong. There are also countless examples which show that practices that were considered right in a community/religion in the past are now recognized as being wrong. So why does this concept of right and wrong differ greatly over time and culture?
Now let me put this question to you: If you are stuck on an island, all the edible food has been consumed and the only option left for survival is to kill and eat your colleagues, then is it right to kill the person next to you or is it right to knowingly let yourself starve to death. Similarly, is it right to kill a man in self defense (note that killing in self defense doesn’t carry any penalty according to the judicial system)?
Now we have come to the point where we are more inclined to say that an act can’t be deemed right or wrong without looking at the intention behind the act. Also, people’s views on whether an act is right or wrong may differ from community to community and may change over time.
So what exactly is universal about right and wrong in this dynamic and ever changing world? It is the intention behind an action that makes it wrong. Any act done with the intention of harming the other person (pure malice) is wrong. Evil intent is wrong. There is no society in this world that doesn’t consider acts spurred by such intentions to be wrong. Thus, right and wrong changes with how a specific person looks at the situation (thus the debate on whether some stuff is ethical or not). Furthermore, as we get more information, our perception of right and wrong may change (changes of perception over time).
Now let us look at a complete anarchy without any law and order. No laws have been laid down and nobody is ever officially punished. There is no semblance of a civilized society. In such a situation, do right and wrong exist (do they hold any meaning whatsoever)? If so, then who defines and upholds them? Is it not one’s own conscience?!
Lastly I would like to make a statement: “A person is always right unless he is convinced otherwise.” If a person considers some act to be right, unless he is convinced otherwise, he will deem it to be right even if he is crucified for it. With respect to him, what he thinks is right will be right for him to do unless convinced otherwise. There is no use punishing a man without making him realise that the act he is being punished for is indeed wrong.
If you are the last human left on earth, then who is to say whether you are right or wrong except your own conscience.
