Right and Wrong is Relative. Do you agree? (enemy, death, March)

[LoveWisdom]

So what IS a good person? I guess there are levels.

There is a person who doesn't intentionally go and harm someone just for the sake of harming them.

There is the one that doesn't harm people unless necessary (and there are different levels of what's considered "necessary")

There are different levels of what's considered "harm". Like a divorce for example could be considered "Harm" by some and not by others.

And then there is an element of whether you fit into a group of people. For example, a girl who sleeps with many boyfriends over time could be considered "good" among those who basically do the same. And would be considered "bad" in those groups which don't believe in doing this.

OR a hippy would be considered bad in high society circles for not following the manners system of the "high society" population.

Or a rebel would be considered good if he is working at sabotaging the enemy and would be considered bad if he was acting out this same rebellious personality within his own people.

What is good: a cheerful dreamy disposition or a kind of a serious, let's get back to business one? I think that the answer would depend on whom you ask?

A famous fairy tale called "ugly duckling" is a classic example of how a beautiful thing could be seen as ugly when placed into the wrong circumstances.

Many wonderful people become perceived as "bad" when trying to survive with spouses which are too different from them. For example, a husband who doesn't require his wife to cook would be blissfully happy with his beautiful non-cooking wife and would tell her how great she is overall. And a husband who expects her to cook would tell her how she is "bad" for shirking her duties, for not being like a normal wife should be, how she is deficient in her overall way.

There is an expression: white crow (I am translating an expression, maybe there is another one in this language). It means that this bird is not considered normal within the black crow community.

So, everything is relative. Good and bad is relative. For example, in some groups putting down your wife is considered "good", a duty of a husband almost. Some women even go as far as to say: he is not a man, if he doesn't slap you around.

Or having multiple wives is considered good in some groups. But an American woman would call such a man "a pig" for wanting many wives.

Killing a life seems like a good thing. Like for example, killing insects that invade a home. But just because they are smaller than us, does it mean it's "good" to kill them? I don't know... I mean I wouldn't want someone bigger than me to consider that it's good to kill me, so I would say "not good". But what if we don't kill viruses and bacterias, wouldn't they destroy us? Maybe it's actually "good" to kill them?

Or is it good to kill your cat when he is in pain? Ok, some think it's good. It's humane and compassionate. But is it good to kill your grandmother in the same situation? Most say: no, this is not good. Hmm, interesting. We are more compassionate and humane towards cats then?

Or they say: it's wrong to kill yourself (like by taking too many pills or something). And yet, there are things which people eat that they believe are slowly killing their body. And that's considered ok. It's just food, it's just eating. So it's unhealthy, but it doesn't matter. So I guess it's ok to kill yourself over time, but it's not ok to do it in one moment.

So who decides what is right and what is wrong? I think a society decides that (as a collective organism). Even in the Bible, God said in the New Testament that it's wrong to kill another person, and said in the Old Testament that it's ok to kill to avenge death.
Or it's ok to kill during war, but not ok during peaceful times. So it's like society decided: ok, now it's war time, we will declare that killing is going to be ok, but only of those who are "the enemy". So society decides as a group what is right and what is wrong. But is there a universal right and wrong? That I don't know.

Some planets (people) may decide that we are insignificant (like an animal planet) and that it's ok (it's good) to kill us and hunt us. And why not? We do hunt our own lower species (animals). But we would perceive that planet as vicious and bad. But are they? In the Universal good and bad sense? I think that if we decide that they are bad, we MUST decide that we are bad for killing our own animals.

[elyn02]

I think when using words like good and bad, the audience is being considered. I believe we use these words to explain a situation to children in order to keep things simple. However, adults realize that many times, we contradict ourselves when taking other situations into consideration.

I have a tendency to look beyond if something is right or wrong by deciding if I am willing to face the consequences of my action. So, yes, I do think society does have a major factor in deciding what is right and what is wrong but that didn't stop me from acting or not acting.

[Cleonidas]

I think it's relative. How can the morality that the particulars of my socialization created in me be relevant to a young man who was born on the same day and at the same time to a goat herder in Southern Libya and whose father routinely had to kill marauders that wanted to steal his goats and camels, cut his children's throats and rape his wives and who would be considered successful if he could establish his own goat herd and kill off marauders long enough for his own children to come of age?

[Memphis1979]

Right and wrong are dependent on the situation, the needs of the individual/s, and many other factors.

Is it wrong for a mother to steal a loaf of bread to feed her family? Stealing is wrong, but even the Bible gives you a pass when stealing to feed your family.

[Chicago South Sider]

This world is more about 'risk and benefits' or 'action and consequence' than it is about right and wrong. Those are ambiguous words that really don't have much meaning at all.

[JaxRhapsody]

I believe it's relative to person to person, sure you have laws, and a general consensus, but what you think morally is not always the same to someone else- like an opinion. Honestly, just because X amount of people think something is wrong, doesn't mean it is, nor will stop someone from thinking otherwise. If I wanted to bang my sister, wether or not I actually did, or could, nomatter who said it was wrong, in my mind it would be perfectly fine to do so, then to me it's not a bad thing. That would be my moral standpoint, at the end of the day, what's right or wrong, moral or immoral, is merely an opinion. We as a whole are just conditioned to think of this is this, that is that. I have no intentions of laying my sister, but law or not, I don't care if someone else does. I don't force my opinion of what's right or wrong on anyone. Some of these things are silly anyway.

[Wendell Phillips]

Everything is either good or bad depending on who you ask; what one person praises, another prosecutes. Socrates asked: "What is good and what is not good . . . need we have anyone tell us these things?" But this was a rhetorical question, for the truth is that no one - not even Socrates - can tell us anything about it.

A great pianist was once asked if he thought his concert performance was good. After reflecting for a moment, the maestro answered: "Only the critics would know." And, with a wry smile, he added: "They said last night I played brilliantly."

[Blink101]

Honestly, I feel like the terms good and bad are very subjective. I think what is more important is to recognize what kinds of effects or unintended consequences your actions have irregardless of the intent behind them.

For example, "a mother who has stolen bread to feed her child" needs more context than simply thievery being bad and feeding your child being good. She may have stolen bread from a mother who worked all day to earn that bread so her child would not starve. In that situation, the mother who stole the food has provided for her child by taking food from another child. Or her actions may contribute to a store closing, multiple families losing income, and create a situation where the number of desperate parents and starving children have increased. Neither of these circumstances make the thievery feel justified even if it was to provide for her child since it was at the expense of other hungry kids. Though no one would condemn her for the intent behind her crime, the overall effect here is not something I would call "good."

I suppose what I'm saying is that while many things are relative, simply having "good" intentions behind "bad" actions does not necessarily negate the negative impact those actions could have on other people.

[skoro]

It's clear that what's accepted as right and wrong changes over time as societies evolve. Burning witches was acceptable a few centuries ago, often on no more than the accusation of a neighbor or someone with an agenda.

What's right today may be wrong in the coming centuries and vice-versa. Humanity's march into the future isn't well-defined or at an even pace.

[harpoonalt]

Are you looking for black and white in a world of grey?