|
I think it's important to distinguish between absolute right and wrong (like somehow there's a code that exists outside of human consciousness) and right and wrong as ethical concepts. Of course the concept of right and wrong is inescapable, but what is defined as right and wrong at any given time in a given situation is subject to exception and to change.
Look at it this way:
Is killing wrong? Most people would say "yes" automatically, assuming this is an absolute wrong.
What if you're killing someone who threatens your life?
Or killing an animal to eat it?
Or an animal killing another animal?
So there's an exception to this absolute...it's wrong to kill except when your life depends on it in some way.
What about speaking against your country's leaders? Used to be punishable by death (Henry VIII, Stalin, etc.) Times change, contexts change.
I think there are a few things that are codified as near-absolute wrongs because they jeopardize our ability to live in a social setting. It's wrong to harm another person, unless (in some cases) it's to redress/prevent further or greater harm. Incest is wrong because it jeopardizes the gene pool.
I think it's a little naive, or perhaps arrogant, to assume that any culture has access to knowledge of absolute right and wrong. Some subjectivity is necessary for change, and recognizing that right and wrong are sometimes subjective is necessary to negotiate a complex world.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|