Right and Wrong

Right and Wrong

Right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, fair and unfair, biased and unbiased; these are just a few of the arguments that each of us try to resolve on a daily basis as we make necessary personal decisions about what to do, how to do it, and react and adjust to circumstances beyond our personal control. The problem is, of course, each of us makes a subjective judgment about what is right or wrong within our particular circumstances based on our personal experiences, education, social pressure, state of comfort or discomfort, ad infinitum, and these differences in personal circumstances leads each of us to have a different opinion of what is, right or wrong. This leads us to the notion of Relativism that argues that ethical truths (right and wrong) in society depends upon the individuals and groups holding them (ethical truths) versus a steady Moral Compass that argues that ethical truths (right and wrong) in society are an unequivocal moral standard that is indifferent to subjective circumstances. Here is the problem with these two notions. Relativism can justify any social behavior and a Moral Compass cannot allow for changing circumstances. For example, racial discrimination against white people is allowable today in order to balance out the past racial discrimination against black people, i.e., relativism argues it’s Right to racially discriminate against white people in order to correct the Wrong of past racial discrimination against black people. As you can see, it’s no longer the unequivocal notion that racial discrimination is always wrong regardless of when, were or whom, it’s relative to the circumstances of blacks being racially discriminated against in the past that makes it Right to racially discriminate against white people today. How about an even easier example of relativism? Within a civil society it is wrong to kill another human but relative to a time of war it is right (or at least not wrong) to kill another human who is an enemy combatant. A Moral Compass can argue that it is unequivocally wrong to racially discriminate, and if everyone agrees with that ethical truth, all is well within the body social. But what happens when circumstances are such that racial discrimination is practiced as an ethical truth (right)? For example, the Germans practiced eugenics in order to produce the Master Race. This practice of eugenics to create the Master Race was an extension of the theory of evolution that held that survival of the fittest justified the mass murder of Jews and others thought to be inferior races. If you are a Jew or another of a race that the Germans sought to eliminate, is it right to racially discriminate against Germans by killing Germans until the Germans stopped killing Jews? In this circumstance, a Moral Compass that unequivocally says racial discrimination is wrong would be an objective ethical guidance that lacks a subjective equilibrium, and as such, would be an impractical and deadly compass for a moral people. On balance, I believe that a Moral Compass is a greater problem than Relativism. I say this because the unequivocal right and wrong that a Moral Compass promotes can be misused for nefarious purposes by those in power and authority, and indeed has been misused throughout the history of mankind, i.e., right and wrong are only subjective metaphors that twist and turn with expediency rather than a real social construct that offers eternal moral guidance. Further, an unequivocal right or wrong relieves the individual of the necessity of subjectively deciding what is right or wrong within a civil society and thereby does not serve the cause of individual liberty. All of this cogitation about right and wrong is really about what is going on today in our country and society. I believe that to try to assign right or wrong, good or bad, etc., to the Bernie Madoffs, Flim Flam Politicians, greed, dishonesty, and on and on, offers no solution or true understanding of problems facing us today. That is to say it is the essence of democracy to judge, decide and vote on the basis of individual liberty and justice and not on a notion of right or wrong. In so doing, correct decisions and judgments will be rendered and collective society will be served.