The issue of right and wrong can be discussed on different basis like considering

society or considering the adoption of a particular scientific theory in

comparison to
other theories.Here we are going to study the idea of right and wrong from the
point of view of morality.

let us take an example.Suppose you work in a library checking people as they go

out.And one of your friend asks you to help him in smuggling a rare book from the
library.Now if you are a rational thinker or atleast a normal person,you won't
like the idea.Even if you have to do this,you won't feel comfortable with it.But
why?
There can be many reasons for this,like you may think that he may be caught and
then both of you will be in trouble.This reason reflects your mindset for not
helping
your friend because such a help is against the rules.It may give an idea of
defining right and wrong with respect to the rules.But if we give one more
thought,we can
easily see that there is something more subtle than the rules which decide what is
right and wrong,because rules are formed by someone like us using something
as a yardstick and that something is not rules.Rules are some kind of forceful
imposition on us(sometimes).They may be the product of someone's rational thinking
and
perfectly acceptable but for others,they may be just suppressors.There are bad
rules which prohibit what is right even like law against criticising the
government.
Also if we consider HITLER'S CASE,his idea of bringing peace was the removal of
one of the two rival races was correct according to him but for the other race,it
was
a devastation as they had to lose their lives for bringing peace.So how it could
be right for them.So rules are generally not the basic things.

You can have various other reasons for not helping your friend.You may think that
it would be unfair for the users who also want to refer that book but are using
that
book in the library only or it may give you a feeling that you are cheating your
employers who are paying you for avoiding the act which your friend is asking you
to
do.If you think deeply on this idea,you will realize that all these reasons are
the result of the feeling of caring others.Because you may think that nobody comes
to know that you are responsible for this fraud,that is,it is not going to affect
their emotions about you,but it is going to affect their lives.So it involves the
idea of caring others.But your friend may say,"it's okay that it causes discomfort
to some people and employers may not like it,but who cares? Why should I care?"
Whatever reasons you have given above are valid as long as you care for others.Now
if someone does not care for others,it may give him an impression that he is free
to do anything he wants if he can get away with it.In other words,according to
him,it implies that he is not having any problem(i.e. he is right) in
killing,cheating
or doing anything if it serves his purpose and he can get away with it.But it
doesn't make it all right.Even if someone thinks it's right to kill someone for
personal
interests,everyone of us will say that he still deserves punishment,what we want
to say is this:-atleast some things should be correct in the objective sense.It
also
suggests us of the view that we can not abonden the idea that we should care for
others.But the question is:-Why we should he care?

There are many attempts to answer this question:-

(1)First idea is to consider something which is of paramount importance for us and
then connect it to morality.For example,
everyone wants to be happy and no wants to suffer.let this want be *
The belief is even if someone do wrong and also able to avoid the punishment of
fellow human beings,he has to suffer after death.He will be punished by "GOD" by
sending him to hell(a place full of hardships).So if someone really wants *,he
should avoid doing wrong and should do right only.The improved version of this
idea is
that we should be loyal to the creator by doing what he wants us to do and
avoiding what he don't like,that is,it is not the fear of creator which makes us
do what is
right but love towards Him.This idea considers GOD as the ultimate originator and
responsible for the peace in the world.
There are many arguements against this belief.The first one is that Existance of
GOD is not a universally accepted idea.There are people who don't believe in GOD
but
can still distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.What does it mean?
There is something even more fundamental than this belief of existance of GOD.May
be,
this belief is one of the ways to express that more fundamental thing.Also the
fear of punishment or the loyality towards GOD do not seem to be the right forces
of
morality.We(rational people) consider it to be wrong to kill someone not because
our creator forbade us to do so,but we consider that to be a bad thing.In general
not all the things which are allowed or abandoned by the supreme authority of any
religion are accepted by the followers of that religion unless they themselves
think
that it is right or wrong(not at all ageneral rule)

(2)Second explaination of the force of morality appeals to the interests of the

person who must act.For example it is said that we should treat others with
consideration so that they'll do the same to us.But this idea is based on the
assumption that the behaviour of others depend on our behaviour towards them which
is not
always valid like in the example given above:-Behaviour of others towards me do
not change if they don't come to know that I am involved in the smuggling of the
book.
That is,this explaination is valid only as long as others come to know about what
I am doing which is not the case always.
But in reality this doesn't give me a reason to help my friend because I know that
it will affect their lives.There is no substitute for the direct concern of the
people as the basis of morality.

(3)Suppose you are about to steal someone's umbrella as you are about to leave a
restaurent in a rainstorm and a bystander asks you,"How would you like it if
someone
did the same to you?"This question makes you reluctant in stealing the umbrella
and make you feel guilty if steal umbrella.Why?Let us analyse your feelings if
someone
else stole your umbrella.Now at this point,you are supposed to consider all the
feelings you would have if someone stole your umbrella.First feeling is that you
won't
like it.You would also have feelings about the umbrella thief:Where does he got
off taking my umbrella?Why he didn't bring his own umbrella? etc.
The arguement above gives us a strong basis for understanding the following
idea:When our own interests are threatened by the inconsiderate behaviour of
others,we find
it easy to appreciate that others have a reason(whatever that reason is) to be
more considerate towards us.When we are hurt,we probably feel that others should
care
about us.
Now if you admit that you would resent it if someone else did to you what you are
now doing to him,you are admitting that you think that he has a reason to not to
steal your umbrella.And if you admit that you have to consider what that reason
is.Now it couldn't be just that he is hurting you,of all the people in the world.
There is nothing special about you(from his point of view in comparison to other
people in the world).So,what ever the reason is,you think he is having for not to
steal your umbrella is also a reason for him not to steal anyone else's
umbrella.Now he is just another human being.So the above reason is a reason anyone
would have,
in a similar situation,against hurting anyone else according to you.And so it is
also a reason for you not to hurt the person whose umbrella you are going to steal
now.So you shouldn't steal the umbrella.
This arguement can also be escaped if someone answers,"I won't like it if someone
stole my umbrella but I won't resent it at all."Then de won't have any reason to
not
to steal anyone else's umbrella.But this view is not held by many people.Beacuse
in general,we ought to think that when we suffer.it is not bad just for us but bad
in
general for everyone who suffers under the same conditions.

Whatever explainations we have discussed uptill now consider the reasons for doing
right and wrong,and said nothing about the degree of impartiality involved in
doing right and wrong,how we should weight the interests of others against the
special interests we all have in ourselves and the particular people close to us?
For instance,should we care every other person as much as we care for ourselves?
Should we ask everytime we go for a movie,whether the cost of ticket give me more
happiness or will it give more happiness to those who are needy if I gave that
money to them?
Very few people are so impartial between themselve and others,also if they have to
be impartial to that degree,they don't have any reason to do a favour to a friend
in comparison to a stranger.
Let us analyse it from a different point of view.
We are a particular person,but we are also able to recognise that we are just one
person among many others and no more important than they are when looked from
outside.How much this point of view influence our degree of impartiality ?This
point of view may give an impression of uniformity of behaviour(of everyone
towards
everyone else) in the world ,but still we matter somewhat from outside,otherwise
we won't think that others have any reason to have concern for us.But the point
which
goes against this much degree of impartiality is that from inside we matter much
more than anybody else or even ourselves from outside.So how can we be so much
impartial?
This analysis won't give us some definite solution about how much impartial should
we be?Also another point which is left untouched yet is that whether this degree
of
impartiality varies from person to person or is there a unique solution to this
problem ?This takes us to another big question whether right and wrong are same
for
everyone or not?
This problem can be dealt in the following ways:-
(1) First way to consider it is that we assume that right and wrong are
universally same.But something being right or wrong is not a reason for that to be
done or not.
Only people with right sort of moral motives have any reason to do what's right.In
a way,this idea devoids morality of it's strength to make us do what is right and
avoid
what is wrong even after knowing what is right and what is wrong.It is like saying
that it's wrong to tease those who are weak but I have no reason to not to tease.
This idea seems to be unsatisfactory.
(2)The above idea may be corrected if we consider that morality provides us strong
enough reason for action.What we are saying is that everyone has a reason to do
what is right and avoid what is wrong.But that reason won't depend on the person's
actual motives. In a way,the morality gives us reason to change our present
motives
if they are wrong.But how is it possible to have such reasons for morality which
don't depend on one's motives or desires.This is not clear.

(3)The above point has a big problem in it.The problem is that we have said that
everyone has a reason to do what is right and what is wrong.Is that reason
universal
or does it depend on individuals? It appears that it is impossible that everyone
in the world has same reason for doing what is right for a particular matter
because
every individual is unique and has a unique point of view. So it is possible that
people have different reasons for considering the same thing to be right or
wrong,but
it also gives rise to the possibility that what reason a person gives for
something to be right,another person may give another reason for the same thing to
be wrong
This makes morality relativistic. The reason an individual has for doing what is
right and avoiding what is wrong depends on how much he cares for others. If that
feeling of care towards others is strong,the person would have strong reasons and
hence strong moral requirements, and likewise the moral requirements would be weak

if his moral motives are weak.This may seem to be realistic but it goes against
the universality of moral rules.

The (3) point can be supported by taking into account that moral rules also depend
on different societies .Also there are times when practices like
slavery,heriditary
caste systems etc. are considered to be morally correct by a large group of
people, but today most of the people of the world think that these are wrong. It
may also
happen that things which we today consider right, might be considered completely
wrong in the future. There is one objection to the dependence of morality on
societies.
It is always possible to criticize the moral standards of our own society. It is
not that we can't see what are the drawbacks in the moral standards of our own
society unless we
are blind followers of our community.