The concept of what is right and wrong is ambiguous and subjective. In the case of axioms such as two and two added together make four is a fact and thus right, anyone claiming that two and two make any number other than four is wrong. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or that I study at the Dhirubhai Ambani International School are facts that are not open to debate. Thus there is a clear demarcation of what is right and wrong.
An issue that is highly controversial is religion and God. Does God exist? If God is out there which is the correct religion? These are questions that have no answer. There is a proof of the existence of God while leading scientists refute those proofs. Who is right and who is wrong cannot be determined, Which faith is the true faith, is it Shiva, Christ or Allah who is God. A devout Christian would defend his religion and oppose all others, and in the eyes of Christians he would be right while Muslims would believe he is wrong. In this case ones up-bringing, beliefs and emotions plays a role. The Muslims and Christians have never agreed on one aspect. The Muslims do mention and agree upon the existence of man called Jesus Christ but unlike the Christians they call him a prophet and not the Son of God, they also claim that since Mohammed was the last prophet the Muslims are superior to all other religions. I can think of billions of people who would be antagonistic towards such beliefs. So who is right?
Euthanasia is a practice that has gained a lot of heat in the past few years. People who suffer from terminal diseases and have a long arduous painful path to their inevitable graves (in between they may even change physically; deformity) are forced to bear their pain rather than commit an act that would relieve them of their pain. Those who are suffering say that it is right since a life of misery is worse than no life at all, while devout religious believers feel that it is against God's desire. Ethically is it right for one man to take another human being's life. These are issues that have different impacts on each individual. Someone whose relative or friend has suffered and realizes the impact it has on the victim, sympathizes for other people and may conlcude that it is better to allow Euthanasia.
Is Gene Therapy and Genetic modelling in agricultural, ethically right? There is a type of rice called 'golden rice' that is packed with Vitamin A and has been genetically create, thus the issue of science intervening in the very framework of living beings and altering them is raised. Is it our place to chnage God's version of the earth ( as religious believers view the situation). However it is the rice that can solve all Vitamin A crisis in regions where people cannot afford three meals a day.
The concept of right and wrong has been spelt out to a child as if written in a rulebook that has been circulated and studied. For example, son do not steal from others it isn't good to take what does not belong to you, do not cheat the best reward is when you earn it yourself, do not harm others, do not litter, respect your adults, obey your elders. However these rules which seemed to be engraved in the very social fabric of a child seem to undergo a certain degree of scrutiny and flexibility as we grow up. Let us take an extreme example, say one child is suffering from an infection that has a cure beyond the financial means of the child's father, and another child who suffers from the same disease whose father scrapes the botom of his piggy bank to buy the medicine to have it stolen by the first man who could not afford it. In the first father's eye it was a necessary measure and in his opinion passable as the right decision. What about white lies to protect other peoples emotions are those also wrong.
In conclusion right and wrong have no clear-cut boundaries each individual must draw his own line. These limits are often set by an individual's moral and ethical beleif. These boundaries are never set they fluctuate during an individual's lifetime even if his beliefs don't, since various situations will force them to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Rahul,
You've got the main points here, which are (a) the distinction between right = correct, and right = morally acceptable. The first is a problem in TOK sometimes as we debate whether we are perceiving asccurately, or making logical deductions, but is easy enough in the simple mathematical examples you give and (I think) in statements like 'We are at the Dhirubhai Ambani School'. The second is, as you rightly say much more difficult. In religion millions of people firmly believe each of many different views about factual events upon which they say they base their beliefs. This takes us into History TOK (though these areas are almost invariably omitted from history syllabuses: there's a row brewing over whether the Koran can be treated in the standard IB manner by being subjected to the 'Origin - Purpose - Value -Limitation' formula when looking at relations between Christianity and Islam in the Middle Ages) Then we get into the question whether right and wrong are objective aspects of things (capable of being listed for children as you describe) or just matters of opinion. Here we can note that all moral systems agree on certain things, like prohibiting random killing, so it seems that there are some 'moral constants'. If moral views were simply matters of taste, and someone said 'It seems good to me to rob that person' would there be any more point in arguing about it than there would arguing with him if he said 'rice pudding seems nice to me'? If there is no point arguing, how else can we defend what we personally approve of? Would it be OK to shoot him, since it would be 'right' because it 'seemed good' to do so? Is that what democracy is for, simply to add up the weight of feeling about what seems good, and call it law?
Regards
Mr N
Post a Comment