The issue of good versus evil, right versus wrong, and moral versus immoral has become more prevalent in today’s financially and materially inclined society, simply because our understanding of the debate has taken a turn for the worse, mainly the radical. As another card in the fragile house of cards that society is building itself, the notion that some actions that one can commit in the world can be deemed as morally justifiable compared to other actions is extremely vague in foundation. In essence, the argument that one’s action could be good versus an action that is evil is based entirely on social stigmas and regulations.
For example, in the past, society thought it morally justifiable to kill in the name of the Lord. In fact, today the very thought of killing in the name of a higher cause is one to be rewarded. Although the prevalence of such beliefs can be constrained to a minority of the populous, the action of killing, if the reason is “appropriate” is one that could be argued as morally correct, if not morally necessary. Let us take this argument to a level of more stunning simplicity. The ancient Aztecs and various other ancient cultures thought it a grand act to sacrifice animals and people for the sake of replenishing the love of their gods. At that time, the act of vandalizing another village in search of human sacrifice was one that not only became socially acceptable, but one that became morally necessary. In more simple terms, killing others for one’s own gods was a good thing. Today, sacrifices that resemble that of the ancient world are recognized as murder and an example of the barbarity of the past. However, this view is only correct if translated through the context of age-old religions. A varying idea can be seen in some of today’s religious factions, where members of our “modern” society could still view killing as a source of love of a higher power as “right” or “correct”.
Our notion of what is right and wrong is based entirely on the whole of society’s ability to create simple rules of maintaining stability and order. There is no higher power directing what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect, and if there is, the rules dictated by that of a higher power is not only menacing, but extremely cruel. However, I am not arguing for the basic moral rules to be dismantled, but instead, to be examined more thoroughly; to use logic and reason, coupled with the understanding of a more global society to lay out certain ethical standards that respect all nationalities. The rejection, or the failure to understand, our neighbors and fellow human beings, will lead inevitably to war and strife. Such is the reason to appreciate more fully the basic belief that one should live in a society regulated by justifiable laws respecting all, rather than a system of "moral" regulations where right and wrong is laid out without comprehending the exact nature of what is right and what is wrong.
I do not know entirely, if at all, what can be correct and what can be incorrect in today's society. But as long as a I live a life of continued respect for my peers, a broad understanding of the social stigmas that govern each nationality, and the belief that the lives of others are just as valuable as my own, I will at least try to contribute to the peace of society.
