The Nature of Right and Wrong: Objective or Subjective?
Is there an objective right or wrong, or is everything a matter of subjective opinion? This age-old question has puzzled philosophers, ethical theorists, and everyday individuals alike. While the rules governing our behavior are often objective, how we apply these rules in different situations can be highly subjective. Moreover, the concept of the 'lesser of two evils' adds another layer of complexity to this debate.
Objective Rules vs. Subjective Application
Rules and ethical codes, such as laws and moral principles, are usually objective. They are based on universal standards that apply to everyone. However, the way these rules are applied can vary depending on the individual and the context. For instance, the rule that prohibits theft is objective. Yet, in a situation where someone is desperately trying to feed their children, the necessity of obtaining resources illegally can become a subjective judgment.
The concept of the 'lesser of two evils' further complicates matters. This principle suggests that when two undesirable options are available, one should choose the lesser one. However, it is crucial to remember that even a lesser evil is still evil. The ultimate goal should be to avoid both greater and lesser evils if possible. This principle highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making and the challenges in applying objective rules in subjective circumstances.
Subjective Perception of Objective Situations
Some situations can be objectively perceived as right or wrong. For example, stealing from someone can be a universally undesirable situation. However, the same action can be perceived differently based on personal circumstances. A mother who steals to feed her children may not be viewed as wrong by everyone. This subjective perception underscores the idea that what is right or wrong can be relative rather than absolute.
It is important to recognize that morality is not static and can evolve over time. What was once considered acceptable, such as a husband hitting his wife, is no longer tolerated. This evolution illustrates that what is 'right' and 'wrong' is a matter of societal judgment, which can change as societies mature and gain a deeper understanding of human rights and well-being.
Judgment vs. Opinion
While some actions like murder, rape, and child abuse are universally considered wrong, other actions like stealing can be more complex. A wise and perceptive person's judgment about right and wrong is often more valuable than that of a fool. This suggests that right and wrong are not merely opinions but are real and meaningful concepts. However, they are not absolute truths but are relative and context-dependent. They reflect the subjective judgments of those who live in a particular environment and time.
The terms 'right' and 'wrong' can become more definitive when applied to human behavior through the use of concepts like 'harm' and 'benefit.' The principle 'first do no harm' is a guiding ethical principle that can help prevent conflicts of interest. However, it is crucial to ensure that any supposed benefits are objective and equitable for all parties involved.
Conclusion
In summary, while the rules governing right and wrong are often objective, how they are applied can be highly subjective. Right and wrong are not universal absolutes but are relative concepts that reflect the judgments of individuals within a particular context. It is important to recognize both the objective nature of rules and the subjective nature of their application. By understanding this balance, we can make more informed and ethical decisions in our lives and in society as a whole.