Philosophy
Introduction
“So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”- Ernest Hemingway. The above quote by an eminent American writer speaks volume of the involvement of perception of different individuals in deciding any action, morally right or wrong. Some philosophers also had this belief that every individual has an inner voice, which can never encourage you to do anything wrong. However, it is necessary to listen to the same extremely attentively. They refer this inner voice as the voice of the divine power. So, people love to follow their heart when they have a dilemma of what to choose between a right and wrong action. This sometimes proves beneficial for them, and sometimes harmful.
The confusion never ends. For example, everyone acknowledges terrorism as a global menace as it brings with its only death and destruction. However, it is worth mentioning that the act of terrorism is well justified in the eyes of the terrorists. They even took the extreme step of becoming a suicide bomber to commit acts of terrorism without an iota of regret or guilt. The confusion is not limited to, terrorism but extends to day-to-day activities. Some people refrain from cheating, stealing, breaking promises or hurting others intentionally. However, all these acts are rampantly committed by a large section of the population as for them this much is not wrong at all. For them, these are wrong only if they pose any serious threat or damage to the others. In short, human beings have often experienced a dilemma in understanding what is right and what is wrong. According to most philosophers, rather than emotions, the rational thinking or arguments make an act right or wrong. In this paper, I will argue that things are labeled as right or wrong because people judge it so as I find the topic extremely relevant in the wake of global terrorism. Moreover, the topic has also pretty relevance in nursing, business and other professions where people usually come across situations where they have to choose between the right and wrong.
In this section, I will provide a detailed reconstruction of this paper’s main argument with few examples of which the foremost is the dialogue between the Greek philosophers Socrates and Euthyphro. During the dialogue, Socrates successfully points out at the end that the Gods love certain things because they are pious. They are not pious because the Gods love them. Although the famous dialogue between the two ends without giving any proper definition of what is piety i.e. piousness or dutifulness, it definitely gives a glimpse of the views of Socrates on right and wrong to a certain extent. It profoundly helps in understanding that more than any universal authority, we make up right and wrong as per our own individual judgment.
There is no such thing like that of a universal standard for evaluating any action, right or wrong as most people think. For example, in every culture, people have certain beliefs of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. This in many ways deviates from the perception of the people belonging to other cultures like the use of contraceptives is morally wrong in Pakistan while morally right in the majority of developed countries like Germany, Britain, Canada, and much more. Even, people of both the cultures have their own set of arguments in support of their thinking about the use of contraceptives.
It is also a common practice to take popular opinions as the yardstick of deciding any action right or thinking it as wrong. The actions that may bring to them the wrath of the public or the majority are labeled as wrong. In general, religious leaders play a major role in making moral judgments and any misinterpretation of the holy books by them makes even a rightful act as completely wrong in the eyes of the followers of that religion.
The irony is religious leaders are also motivating people to remain moral in their deeds. However, asking followers of a religion to indulge in wrongful acts depends on the persona of the religious leaders. If he can heavily influence others by his own deeds and preaching, right becomes the wrong and wrong becomes the right as per his desire. Here, worth mentioning is the name of Adolf Hitler, who was not a religious leader and yet he successfully convinces the German forces to do mass killings of millions of Jews to literally wipe out their race from the planet. His hatred for the Christians and other reasons make him believe that what he is doing is absolutely right and justified.
There is no doubt that had he had any confusion regarding his own thoughts, beliefs or actions, such killings on a massive scale were not committed by him or by his force. Jihad is another good example of how people who have influential powers exert their own belief systems of right and wrong on millions and others blindly follow them. For a Jehadi, killing innocent people of other religions is not a merciless act or wrong action as he is only fulfilling the duties of his supreme God-Allah.
Evaluation
In this section, I will provide a thorough evaluation of this paper’s main argument. As Porter has stated, “The objectivist maintains that if something is right for one person in certain circumstances, then it is right for another person in the same circumstances.” (p. 70-71). For example, judges do not give anyone special privileges while giving out judgment and this remains a part of their professional ethics until they are on that post. They have to give a fair judgment, even if their own family members are on trial and may face severe punishment consequently. However, it is essential to point out here that although this looks good on paper, this lacks practicality.
I strongly oppose this claim of Objectivists as if this is the case, fair trials will remain the standard norm across the world. Unfortunately, this does not happen everywhere. The universal law of standard exists only to scientific concepts and that also until they are challenged. Most of the scientists will agree that E=mc2 is right based on their scientific observation or of their predecessor’s experiments and observation. Any other concept deviated from this concept of mass-energy equivalence will be labeled only as wrong by the scientific fraternity. Moreover, moral judgments like giving approval to polygamy or child marriage will not be so rampant in some cultures. Even, the law bodies of nations across the world have different laws for any given action. For example, while marital rape is a crime in countries like the Soviet Union, Poland, Sweden, Norway and many others across the world, in many countries, the law does not look upon marital rape as an offence at all.
I strongly agree with MacNiven as he has pointed out “For the utilitarian,the rightness or wrongness of acts will not be universal but relative to a particular social context. Our moralities reflect the values of the cultures in which we grow up.” ( p. 175) There is no universal law for defining things right or wrong as different people across the world have different cultures and therefore, different values. For example, cannibalism although thought to be extinct is still practiced by the Korowai tribe of the Indonesian New Guinea and likewise, female genital mutilation (FGM) an extremely painful process is still practiced in more than twenty countries worldwide in the name of keeping girls virgin till marriage.
I believe that the outcome of an action is a detrimental factor of labeling the same as right or wrong because if a certain act by a person has proved beneficial to hundreds of people although it is morally wrong as per an Objectivist, it is something rightful. For example, in many countries, euthanasia is now permissible, but only after the advocates of the same are able to convince the authorities that although it is morally wrong to take the life of someone, it is right to end the pain because of an incurable disease.
Conclusion
In this paper, I argued that things are labeled as right or wrong because people judge it so and refute the claim that we make moral judgments because things are already right or wrong. I completely agree with Stephenson, who has pointed out brilliantly that “We convince ourselves that we are right and they are wrong by selectively citing scriptures, finding fault in others and reinforcing our belief system.” (p.133) I believe that even though we judge actions as right or wrong, it is also true that sometimes we make mistakes even if we have the best of the intentions.
Neither things are already right or wrong, nor there any universal law that is applicable while labeling an action right or wrong. So, as it is based only on our judgment, we need to be extra cautious while making any such decision. We should not be influenced by someone, and act as per our own knowledge as well as experience. However, it is also true that there will be an utter chaos in the society the in absence of actions or things clearly labeled as right or wrong. Therefore, labeling things right or wrong is also a necessity to enforce discipline. It is we, indeed, who does the same for various reasons. Sometimes, it is to meet our own ulterior motives and sometimes, it is for the welfare of a large section of the population. So, we should carefully label anything right or wrong.
Works Cited
Porter, F. B. The Good Life: Alternatives In Ethics.United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Print.
MacNiven, D. Creative Morality. USA and Canada: Routledge, 1993. Print.
Stephenson, D. Inspiration Divine: Your Purpose and Path to Health, Happiness and Enlightenment. United States: Theopneustry Media, 2009. Print.
