Right and Wrong...
The most fundamental question to be asked when the topic of ethics arises - What are right and wrong?
At one level, right and wrong tend to be treated as relative concepts(dependent on perspective). What is right for one person may be wrong for another. However, certain things are a matter of social concern. To understand that concern, we have to make a platform for analysing correctness of action. I say "action" here, because thoughts are a personal matter and how the individual deals with them does not need to be apparent to society. They still make a difference at some level - to the individual. Hence, what an individual considers "appropriate" need not necessarily overlap or coincide with what society considers "appropriate". He/she can do as he/she wants as long as he/she is not interacting with any other individual with a different view on what is "appropriate". Once such an interaction occurs, he/she must give respect and consideration to the social concern. This is essentially a demarcation of what is public and private.
Broadly, what promotes existence may be taken as "right". What demotes, hinders or suppresses existence may be taken as "wrong". This is still too vague. If an animal feeds on another animal, do we consider it "right" or "wrong"? If microbes are killed when we boil milk, do we take that as bad? Hence we have to define a field within which the definition applies. Let us take the relatively small field of "humans". This is only an attempt to observe things at a simple level before moving into something more complex. It is clear that the initial definition would not suffice beyond the field of humans. And I shall try to keep refining the definition as I write more posts.
Let us examine whether the field I have chosen is valid... Definitely, society agrees that it is not appropriate for one human to consume another human! It follows, step by step, to the level of saying society does not consider it right to physically harm anyone. So we may say that society considers "non-initiation of force" essential. None should initiate physical force against another. (If all followed that, there would never be any fights!).
I shall continue in my next post. Do comment on where the definition becomes invalid within the field defined. I shall like to see the response before formulating my next post!
At one level, right and wrong tend to be treated as relative concepts(dependent on perspective). What is right for one person may be wrong for another. However, certain things are a matter of social concern. To understand that concern, we have to make a platform for analysing correctness of action. I say "action" here, because thoughts are a personal matter and how the individual deals with them does not need to be apparent to society. They still make a difference at some level - to the individual. Hence, what an individual considers "appropriate" need not necessarily overlap or coincide with what society considers "appropriate". He/she can do as he/she wants as long as he/she is not interacting with any other individual with a different view on what is "appropriate". Once such an interaction occurs, he/she must give respect and consideration to the social concern. This is essentially a demarcation of what is public and private.
Broadly, what promotes existence may be taken as "right". What demotes, hinders or suppresses existence may be taken as "wrong". This is still too vague. If an animal feeds on another animal, do we consider it "right" or "wrong"? If microbes are killed when we boil milk, do we take that as bad? Hence we have to define a field within which the definition applies. Let us take the relatively small field of "humans". This is only an attempt to observe things at a simple level before moving into something more complex. It is clear that the initial definition would not suffice beyond the field of humans. And I shall try to keep refining the definition as I write more posts.
Let us examine whether the field I have chosen is valid... Definitely, society agrees that it is not appropriate for one human to consume another human! It follows, step by step, to the level of saying society does not consider it right to physically harm anyone. So we may say that society considers "non-initiation of force" essential. None should initiate physical force against another. (If all followed that, there would never be any fights!).
I shall continue in my next post. Do comment on where the definition becomes invalid within the field defined. I shall like to see the response before formulating my next post!
posted by Avan at 10:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home