Right or Wrong... or Right the Wrongs

Given the elusive nature of the "truth"... even the "facts"... we might conclude that little can be concluded about the appropriateness of actions, policies, laws, beliefs, etc. To the contrary, truth is not necessary to the discussion of what we deem to be right or wrong.

Truth is a construct. Right and wrong are more immediate and contextual. We covered territorial imperative driven by survival needs as basic to our thoughts and actions. As we have become more complex and sophisticated in our ability to survive... indeed, collectively we seldom concern ourselves with threats of the environment or other species... we increasingly have had to respond to the territorial imperative instinct with larger scale measures.

What does that mean?

We are now... actually have been for thousands of years... only concerned about interactions with other humans. Consequently, there has been a continuous effort to balance the territorial imperative of an individual or group with a cooperative process. In other words, there is a balancing act between what is beneficial for an individual and what is beneficial for groups. The individual is driving to "succeed". The group is driven to manage the individual. From these polarities come our concept of right and wrong... always from the group perspective. Unmanaged individual territoriality leads to chaos and destruction; unmanaged group territoriality leads to war and destruction.

Whether handed down from a deity or a legislature, what is "right" versus what is "wrong" is contextual. That doesn't mean that what is perceived as right or wrong is constantly changing. But it does mean that what is accepted as right or wrong is constantly being challenged by those who would benefit by changes in the accepted definitions. "God's laws" or group laws are in conflict with individual liberty (or license, as some would say). There is no absolute rule regarding anything; there is only the right or wrong that the group can impose and still retain the support of its constituents.

What about dictatorships that impose the will on the group? Well, actually this is one group (the dictator's) imposing its will on another group (the subjugated). This is a not a case of right or wrong as much as a situation of power and lack thereof. These situations tend to resolve themselves over time. Nevertheless, even in these situations, there are generally accepted standards of right and wrong. If the dictator's group forays too much into the realm of what is "wrong", the likelihood of rebellion increases.

So what are we saying?

• Right and wrong are not absolutes; they are what is accepted by the group. For example, most groups hold murder to be wrong. But the Nazis held that murder of Jews and other "undesirables" was the correct thing... the right thing... to do. Killing outsiders has not always been deemed "murder"; whereas killing members of the group is usually forbidden.
  
  
• Right and wrong are contextual. If the group is driven by the fear and acceptance of a deity, then there are immutable "laws". Women must be covered completely. One must worship on Sunday. No other gods are allowed. One group's "immutables" are not necessarily another's. One group's "truths" are not necessarily the other's.
  
  
• Right and wrong can and do change over time and circumstance. Individual protections increase and decrease as the dynamics of the group changes or the interaction of the group changes among other groups. What is "right", what is acceptable, changes over time.

What then, anything goes? Not exactly. It's just that not everything stays. What was once deemed "wrong" may eventually become "right". Then we talk about the wrongs being righted.

Next... right and wrong or functional and dysfunctional?