Are right and wrong absolute? The answer is no.
We would like to believe that there are a few universal right and wrongs that are accepted everywhere as being right or wrong. Things like, murder, sexual crimes, and stealing are viewed as wrong all across the world.
However, there are areas where these acts are not always seen as being wrong. In South Africa, roughly 1/4 of the men, admit to raping women, and it is considered normal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/18/south-africa-rape-study-1_n_217266.html. Even here in America, some men will drug and rape a woman, and feel no moral complications from it. There are entire groups of people who will "Gang-rape" the same woman, as a form of bonding among the members of the collection. These acts normally viewed as repulsive by much of society, are viewed as normal by some.
Of course those acts are viewed as wrong by most of the world, no matter where. So how about something more controversial, something a little more cultural. Is killing people for religious reasons wrong? Now days most would say so, yes. However, during the crusades hundreds of thousands of people died for religious differences, yet those who killed in the name of their god were viewed as heroes. This still goes on today, as most of the world views the terrorist section of Muslims, as criminals and murderers, as being in the wrong. But, the terrorist see themselves as liberators, and heroes, warriors of god, even. They see their actions as trying to purify the world, we see them as acts of cruelty, and other Muslims see it as blasphemy, and murder of the worst kind.
Lets discuss another controversial issue. Legal age of consent. We here in America have put the age limit at eighteen, and we view any infractions of this age limit as, by even one year, as being a statutory rape. However in Canada, and Japan, the legal age of consent is only 14. Two of our closest ally countries have age limits four years below our own, in America those are grounds for child molestation charges. Most countries, in fact, have a age of consent around 16 years old, www.ageofconsent.com, yet do we view them as being criminal infested? Do we say they are wrong for their ways? No, we say their ages are different because their cultures are different.
Of course, culture is not the only factor that weighs in on what is right or wrong. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances that change what would normally be considered ethical. To illustrate my point, allow me to present to you a situation I came up with during one of my other college classes.
In a Hotel there is a bomb large enough to bring the entire building down, and it is going to explode in ten minutes. There are also two people trapped in the building. You are the only person left, except for those two, who are trapped on separate floors. There is a 65-year-old grandmother on the 4th floor, who is disoriented, which is preventing her from undoing the locks on her door. There is also the 5-year-old girl on the 12th floor, who is not tall enough to undo the top lock on the hotel door. You are on the 1st floor, and no one is allowed in because of the danger, and the elevators are in lockdown. There is not enough time to rescue both people, whom do you rescue? Ethically, the choice would be the 5-year-old girl; she is more prominent then the 65 years old because of the age difference. However, You are not in great physical shape, but running flat out, you think you might be able to climb the twelve floors in five to six minutes. You have a vague idea what number the girls apartment is, however you would still have to break the door down to get to her, there is a fire axe at the end of the hallway, and between getting that and breaking the door, that is another two minutes. So getting the girl would cost you minimum seven minutes, plus you would still need to get back down. The odds are heavily against you for getting the girl, and getting both of you out alive, but there is a slim chance, as you could carry the girl, and going downstairs would be much easier. However, the grandmother is only on the fourth floor. You know you can climb the stairs to her apartment in two-three minutes, getting the axe at the end of her hallway and breaking down her door would take two minutes, leaving you with five minutes to get her, and go back down stairs which will take another two-three minutes, leaving you with an extra two minutes to take her outside and get away from the building. There is a good chance of you succeeding in rescuing the grandmother, and both of you getting out alive. However you would for sure be condemning the girl to death. Who do you save? Barring a miracle, going after the girl would almost positively be a death sentence for all three. So is it not right too save the grandmother instead, both you and she would live, wouldn't be better for two people to guarantee live, then for three to most likely die?
There are a variety of factors that need to be considered when deciding what right, and wrong, and no one person is able to positively decide what is, and is not, right for everyone. There is no absolute right, or wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment