Is it possible to make a distinction between right and wrong?
--
Before I begin to answer this question, I would like to define the terms in question, i.e. right and wrong.
According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, right is defined as
· correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth;
· in conformance with justice or law or morality;
while, wrong is defined as
· incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth;
· contrary to conscience or morality or law;
From the wide range of definitions available for the two seemingly simple words, I have chosen the two that most accurately represent my interpretations of these words, or frame the concept of right and wrong. Let the first definition for each be definition A, and the second definition be definition B.
In both cases, definition A seems to be simple enough. Yes, there is a right and wrong version of facts that can be represented. There would be no or very little ambiguity in such a situation. For example, if I was to say that the Pakistan Cricket Team won the ODI series played against India in India in 2007 I would be wrong, in the sense I would be saying something that was not correct, not in conformity with the truth, because the truth as we know it, is that the Indian cricket team was deemed the winner of that series. Similarly, if I was to say that today (23.11.2007) is a Friday, then I would be right, and nothing in the world could prove that I was making an error, or was not conforming to the truth. In the cases of these two examples, and definitions A for both right and wrong, there is an obvious distinction that can be easily be made separating fact from fiction, and accuracy from inaccuracy. In situations and contexts such as these there is no space for ambiguity or misinterpretation of the terms right and wrong.
In the case of definitions B however, the distinction seems to fade or become subjective. Let’s consider the case of a famous novel character, Olive Twist. Oliver Twist was an orphan, who lived in an orphanage in a dire condition, where he was beaten for simply asking an extra helping of soup. He was "rescued" from this life of abject poverty by the artful dodger, who introduced Twist to a world of petty crimes such as pick-pocketing. Now the question here is was Twist "right" in pick-pocketing. My morals tell me that he was wrong, that he should not have stopped to crime, but on the other hand, it is debatable whether it was wrong for Twist considering the morals that were instilled in him. On the other hand, a boy who kills his mother while high on drugs would be termed as "wrong" because this action goes against the ethics of humanity. This brings in the circuitous argument about morals and ethics, where morals are the values instilled in us differing from individual to individual such as its immoral to tell even white lies, while ethics are general thoughts and beliefs about right and wrong that society believes in, such as no matter what the circumstance, killing a parent is unethical, or child labour is unethical. In such cases, where definition B would come into play, it becomes harder to differentiate between right and wrong. It becomes dependent on perspective and on nurture, as there is no longer a universal distinction between right and wrong.
Which would you consider this wrong, a child cheating on a class test so he doesn’t lose his scholarship after he returns to school after a month of being absent? Or would you consider it right for a daughter to lie to her father in a rural Indian town to try and escape a practice like sati? All these questions transcend the realm of right and wrong, and are not, in purely scientific terms, systematic. That is to say, that every time these question were asked, the reply or the response made would not be the same, as opposed to if someone was to ask whether it was true that communists in Russia were called Reds, wherein there would be a definite right or wrong answer.
It is therefore sufficient to say, that while distinguishing right from wrong on a factual, historical level is relatively easy, making the same distinction in areas where morals or ethics become involved is much more difficult and subjective.
--
Before I begin to answer this question, I would like to define the terms in question, i.e. right and wrong.
According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, right is defined as
· correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth;
· in conformance with justice or law or morality;
while, wrong is defined as
· incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth;
· contrary to conscience or morality or law;
From the wide range of definitions available for the two seemingly simple words, I have chosen the two that most accurately represent my interpretations of these words, or frame the concept of right and wrong. Let the first definition for each be definition A, and the second definition be definition B.
In both cases, definition A seems to be simple enough. Yes, there is a right and wrong version of facts that can be represented. There would be no or very little ambiguity in such a situation. For example, if I was to say that the Pakistan Cricket Team won the ODI series played against India in India in 2007 I would be wrong, in the sense I would be saying something that was not correct, not in conformity with the truth, because the truth as we know it, is that the Indian cricket team was deemed the winner of that series. Similarly, if I was to say that today (23.11.2007) is a Friday, then I would be right, and nothing in the world could prove that I was making an error, or was not conforming to the truth. In the cases of these two examples, and definitions A for both right and wrong, there is an obvious distinction that can be easily be made separating fact from fiction, and accuracy from inaccuracy. In situations and contexts such as these there is no space for ambiguity or misinterpretation of the terms right and wrong.
In the case of definitions B however, the distinction seems to fade or become subjective. Let’s consider the case of a famous novel character, Olive Twist. Oliver Twist was an orphan, who lived in an orphanage in a dire condition, where he was beaten for simply asking an extra helping of soup. He was "rescued" from this life of abject poverty by the artful dodger, who introduced Twist to a world of petty crimes such as pick-pocketing. Now the question here is was Twist "right" in pick-pocketing. My morals tell me that he was wrong, that he should not have stopped to crime, but on the other hand, it is debatable whether it was wrong for Twist considering the morals that were instilled in him. On the other hand, a boy who kills his mother while high on drugs would be termed as "wrong" because this action goes against the ethics of humanity. This brings in the circuitous argument about morals and ethics, where morals are the values instilled in us differing from individual to individual such as its immoral to tell even white lies, while ethics are general thoughts and beliefs about right and wrong that society believes in, such as no matter what the circumstance, killing a parent is unethical, or child labour is unethical. In such cases, where definition B would come into play, it becomes harder to differentiate between right and wrong. It becomes dependent on perspective and on nurture, as there is no longer a universal distinction between right and wrong.
Which would you consider this wrong, a child cheating on a class test so he doesn’t lose his scholarship after he returns to school after a month of being absent? Or would you consider it right for a daughter to lie to her father in a rural Indian town to try and escape a practice like sati? All these questions transcend the realm of right and wrong, and are not, in purely scientific terms, systematic. That is to say, that every time these question were asked, the reply or the response made would not be the same, as opposed to if someone was to ask whether it was true that communists in Russia were called Reds, wherein there would be a definite right or wrong answer.
It is therefore sufficient to say, that while distinguishing right from wrong on a factual, historical level is relatively easy, making the same distinction in areas where morals or ethics become involved is much more difficult and subjective.
1 comment:
Princeton, though prestigious, has made a common error (or it may be more sinister). In my opinion 'right' in its second meaning means 'I approve of it', because you would only regard its being in conformity with a moral code as giving it validity IF you approved of the sentiments which underpinned the code. The stuff about the code is an attempt to OBJECTIFY what must in essence remain SUBJECTIVE. This, however, is worrying. If 'right' means 'I like it' is there any possibility of debate, or is it a case of 'de gustibus non est disputandum' (there is no disputing about matters of taste')? If a man chainsaws me to death and then says 'it seemed the right thing to do' can anyone argue with him?
Some hope may be found in the fact that EVERY moral code without exception prohibits random killing (though the thugs came pretty close) and a number of other things. Princeton doesn't admit that there is a problem with this, because (I suspect) it has a position to uphold in American Society. Its lecturers will admit it in their classrooms, but no-one will put it in a public document.
The problem is twofold: with right as 'correct' (your definition A) we have the TOK related issues of perception, logic, language, denial and so on. With your 'definition B', right as 'morally right' we spend much of the time chasing our own tails round the tautology 'right is what I like and I like it because it is right'.
In the cases you mention, why pick on Oliver's crimes? Marx would say he was the victim of a much greater crime which was capitalism. As regards sati, it must 'seem good' to some people or it wouldn't go on. Is there any possible dialogue with such people? If not, should they be shot?
The trouble then is that the people who had the power to shoot might have an agenda of their own which was one that many right thinking (sic) people like you and I might disapprove of. It would be 'against the ethics of humanity' (the tautological equivalent of 'contrary to what many right thinking (sic) people like you and I might disapprove of') Then, 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' ('who will guard the guards themselves')?
Can we ever drag ourselves sufficiently out of the morass of doubt to actually DO anything?
The requirements for making 'good' (sic) moral judgements have been analysed by the Farmington Trust as: 'Phil (fr.Greek philo - to love): the basic belief in the worth of others; emp (from Greek empatho - to feel with): the ability or skill to understand and relate to others, GIG (from Greek 'gignowsco' - to know): the process of contemplating moral issues in terms of facts and realities; and KRAT (from Greek krato, to act): the ability to contemplate and reflect on moral issues and translate one's moral decisions into actions.
It's a big subject. Thanks for your sensible contribution to it.
Post a Comment