Some say that nothing we do is absolutely right or wrong. It is more a matter of personal subjective feeling. What is right for you may not be right for me. We do not want rigid and inflexible rules. The idea of right and wrong sounds like a moralistic judgment. However, others hold that there are universal and timeless principles of good and evil.
Is it too polarized to think in terms of right and wrong?
Good and evil in public life
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has stepped down from royal duties following allegations about his association with someone who procured teenagers for sex. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, seeking votes in the current general election, has faced criticism for his apparent lack of truthfulness. These examples show that the public expects people in the spotlight to follow ethical standards of conduct. This is true even if any alleged misdemeanor does not actually break the law.
The law defines what is right and what is wrong. None of us can hope to get away with killing, robbing, or sexually assaulting others without prosecution in court.
However, the law is not inflexible. In assessing potential wrongdoing, courts realize that what is socially appropriate and inappropriate will vary depending on the circumstances. Thus, stealing or killing can sometimes be the right thing to do, for example taking a knife from a hooligan or a bottle from a drunkard, or killing for one’s country in the fray of battle.
Good and evil in private life.
We assume that what we feel is good must be right. It’s good for me to do well at work and get promoted. So I could justify anything in favor of this. For example, blatantly taking credit for a good idea first expressed by a co-worker.
We have different ideas about what is good and therefore we have different values. Consequently, to a certain extent, we have our own ideas about what is right and what is wrong.
You might agree that:
‘Nothing marks a petty and narrow soul so much as the love of riches.’ (Roman orator, Marcus Cicero)
But it is clear, that according to the world of advertising and consumerism, the right thing to do is to have the best things, the latest technology, the most elegant clothes, in fact any possession associated with being known, successful and attractive.
Values can involve what we call moral principles. This goes beyond valuing the approval of others, or avoiding adverse consequences for ourselves. Examples include doing things decently, not betraying a friend, and acting truthfully without being disappointed. Many would say that while food is pleasurable, eating should be for the primary purpose of being healthy and sharing food. One principle that people follow is to try to exercise restraint and exercise self-control. Likewise, we can believe that acting bravely in the face of adversity is difficult but correct.
Where do moral principles come from?
The culture inculcates the honorable. Of courage in battle, honesty in communication, social justice in adversity, and compassion in disaster.
However, cultural values differ both over time and geographically. Good and evil seem to change all the time. Cannibalism, public torture, and blood sports were widely accepted in many societies in the past. These are now considered incorrect.
We have gorged ourselves on the problems of colonialism, fascism and communism, the destruction of the natural environment in the name of progress and unrestricted technology, the horrors of modern warfare and the spiritual poverty and alienation of mass consumerism. All the things that have come out of what has been said to be correct in politics, economics, or philosophy.
So we are back to the question “Is there any timeless right and wrong, or do all ethical codes remain open to change as cultures and circumstances change?”
Universal Spiritual Guidelines
Religious scholars have pointed out that there are moral guidelines common to the world’s major religions, such as those having to do with moderation, honesty, sincerity, and sexual restraint. These can be found, for example, in the scriptures of all Eastern religions, as well as deep within the errors listed in the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition.
Furthermore, there is the universal ‘golden rule’ of doing to others what we wish them to do to us. The Buddha made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics, and loving one’s neighbor is central to the message of Christ.
All of this is a far cry from the idea that the only right thing is what we subjectively feel inside and live our lives as we please.
Personal advantage and what is virtuous can pull us in different directions. Anyone who defines what is right only in terms of what is in their own interest is not using moral integrity as a guide. I would suggest that we need to acknowledge an internal conflict. The battle between the self-justifications of egoism and, on the other hand, an awareness of good and evil that comes from a higher truth.
Good and evil and spiritual values
Spiritual values do not translate as hard and fast rules. Christ spoke of sexual immorality as wrong, but he did not define this in practice other than mentioning adultery.
Sometimes it is not clear how to follow the spiritual guidelines, but with reflection I would say that we can find the way forward.
I would suggest that we need to understand why what is right is good and why what is wrong is bad. Fortunately, we can use our human awareness and discernment depending on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. In this sense, spiritual principles are the guides to a truly ethical life, not just applying a rigid, thoughtless, and insensitive set of moral injunctions to every circumstance one encounters.
“If modernist naturalism were true, there would be no objective truth outside of science. In that case, right and wrong would be a matter of cultural preference or political power, and the power already available to modernist ideologies would be overwhelming.” Phillip E. Johnson (law professor and co-founder of the Intelligent Design Movement).