MY WORDS; MY LIFE

Drawing lines on right and wrong

Those who believe that human beings should have almost unlimited freedom to do as they please are on one side of the debate. Those who believe in absolute standards that define right from wrong are on the other. In between are many who accept, to varying degrees, arguments from both viewpoints.

What is the solution to our dilemmas? The scope of the issues-and what makes something right vs. what makes it wrong-can be daunting. Discerning right from wrong is a challenge that reaches far beyond the realm of the physical sciences. The issues involved cannot be measured in meters and millimeters or in tons and pounds.

Spiritualqualities-such as honor, respect and love-are the true standards vital to this critical evaluation process.

We must consider the impact of our actions. All our actions have consequences, good or bad. What are the long-term effects on our lives? How do consequences affect others? How do they influence our relationships with family, friends, community and society as a whole?

Virtually everyone recognizes that the needs of the individual must be tempered by the needs of the larger community. Any effective judgment about what is right or wrong needs to thoroughly balance the long-term value and consequences of our actions against their value in satisfying our short-term needs, pleasures and desires.

We are capable of recognizing many of these critical issues and seeing the need to address them. But are we able to effectively evaluate them so we reach conclusions that will consistently benefit allpeople both now and for generations to come? The evidence suggests we are not.

What guidelines should we use?

Our disagreements are vast. Our conclusions and solutions consistently fall short of the ideal for several reasons.

Our primary weakness is our tendency to emphasize short-term personal gains over long-term benefits. Our overriding desire is to satisfy our needs and wants as quickly as possible. Understandably, this greatly clouds our judgment.

Compounding the problem is our tendency to view experiences-both personal and historical-from vastly different perspectives. These different perspectives toward problems and solutions underscore our need for a different reference point, for unbiased and comprehensive guidance in finding long-term solutions.

Who is qualified to give guidance about right and wrong? Unless a Supreme Being exists who reveals the true answers to questions of right and wrong, we have nowhere to turn for such guidance. So let's consider the alternative.

If there is no eternal truth, then all questions of right and wrong are merely a matter of preference. Nothing is intrinsically evil. We are free to choose the standards we prefer and decide which ones should be optional. We are free to determine our own rules and systems for enforcing them, and we can change the rules and systems however and whenever we please to fit our current desires and preferences.

Therefore, if we disagree with any aspect of the established order we could, with no pangs of conscience, challenge it-even with force-should we have the conviction, power and means to do so. If we can recruit enough supporters we can establish our own system of law-or lawlessness-as we please. After all, if we can decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, who would have the right to judge our decisions and actions?

Should we become really ambitious, we can attempt to confront all who have differing views and impose our preferences on them. Obviously, if nothing is inherently wrong, there would exist no actual limits, no real restraints that we would be obligated to recognize. We would determine what is right and whether to impose it on those who are weaker and, in our view, less perceptive. We would be the sole judges of good and evil. The will of the strongest would prevail.

If this scenario seems hauntingly familiar, it's no wonder. It was just such reasoning that led Adolf Hitler to launch World War II. He convinced himself and his followers that he knew what was best for mankind. He believed he should decide which humans were superior and worthy of life and who, being inferior, should be exterminated for the good of the race. He believed he should determine right from wrong. His goal was to impose his perceptions of an ideal world, a 1,000-year reich, on all of humanity-or at least on all he deemed fit to survive.

If you were the judge of right and wrong for the world, would your values and standards be superior to those of Hitler? If so, why? On what authority? What would give you the right to lift your beliefs above his?

so now i know.. do i?