Philosophical Right and Wrong

Note: While this explanation is a philosophical work, and not intended to choose between the right and left points of view, the author does recognize that this theory, too, is solely an opinion of what is "right."

In politics and religion, there is no universal right and wrong. Instead, right is a mere conception by the individual, an opinion of what is the best for whom the conceiver wishes to benefit. There, then, is no absolute right save that which can be proven by fact. In turn, there also is no absolute wrong, besides that which can be proven by fact.

In place of what many would like to believe as an established code of right and wrong, there are spheres of right and wrong, these spheres pertaining to the individual who conceives and abides by his own right. Because of the individuality which determines separate and contradictory rights compared to all others, there isn't a Heaven or Hell, and there isn't a political absolute. For, how can such things exist if the matter at hand is viewed from different realities?

Right and wrong then, are strictly elements of science, mathematics, and therefore economics. This does exclude general economic theories however, since the scope of this generalized view is too broad for any specific calculation to occur.

Having said this, the struggles and endeavors of man bestowing upon his name and cause "righteousness" has been a grammatical mishap, a self-promoting slip of the tongue that can be considered no more than propaganda.

A personal right, or rights manifested in a collective group, is then nonexistent due to other conceptions of right. That is, the ethics of one cannot be proved or disproved when imposed upon or compared to the ethics of another. Such conflict between spheres of rights (personal rights) may cause one to unwillingly submit to a mandated personal view, but this does not necessarily mean that the one who's imposed upon has relinquished individual thought.

Instead, man is so independent and so exceedingly self-righteous that all attempts at an absolute right have thus far failed. One can see Rome's attempt at omnipotence and ultimate right, as well as Britain's, as well as the religious crusades and attempts to convert of different faiths via missions, all have eventually failed. This is due to man's atomistic visions and priorities, and his personal right and consequential willingness to resist what he considers wrong.

So we see that absolute right is a sheer impossibility unless all of mankind were to comply to one strict, total psychology, which is infeasible. Instead, we are faced with differing conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong." These opinions are reactionary elements to the environment and influence within which one prospers. An utter conformity of all spectrums of life is an outlandish idea.

So without right and wrong, every human in the changing sections and eras of mankind have fought for what is moral to them.

Loyal to a concept, the majorities of the past and present fight other majorities loyal to a concept, i.e. a nation against another, an organization against another. With morality conceived ideologically different, we are presented with a competition of embodiments.

These embodiments, incidentally, are composed of those who more or less agree with the general outlook that the society possesses. The people willingly are part of this society and produce a characterization as to their collective, broad stances on issues. Any person who unwillingly participates in a personally wrong embodiment is, by their sphere of right, free to leave it or to rebel against it.

In the name of one embodiment, an organization strives for morality as sought after by those who operate and partake in it, as the other functions exactly the same. In the most rudimentary sense, each is exactly the same, both striving for exactly the same purpose: what is right.

Yet, unlike facts—the truths and statistics that can be proven and are absolutely right or wrong—visions of morality have philosophical base, a theory that ultimately justifies their thought and actions. This system, for it is ever occurring throughout our history and most likely into the present, will only cease to be when there is one embodiment.

As explained before, a total psychology is an impossibility. A human will always have character flaws as seen by others, wavering opinions concerning other members of society—this should be identified as inevitability.

Yet despite social differences, man, as explored, has always been bound to the philosophy of morality, which is a concept carried out with action, that is supposed to improve overall conditions for the general people.

It is then possible for man, under the leadership of moral societies, to mutually accept an opposing or contrary society. If man were to set aside his atomistic notions, then a peaceful world would be able to exist. This would actually be a recognition of the society, but rather an acceptance as to its being and own virtues.

Nonetheless, such ideas, no matter how relevant or ideal, cannot be imposed upon the people. As seen in the listed examples, forceful imposition distinguishes right from wrong (mandates a right). An embodiment of acquiescence is bound, by human nature, to establish its own right. And the established system is bound to defend itself from rebellion, protecting its own right.

Thus the ceaseless quarrels of man prolong. For he who is in power, omnipotence, the pinnacle of his right, is a Babylon, feasible only by the supercilious in the midst of their authority and pride. Man's own greedy intentions are the only detour to a plausible peace. Omnipotence, on the other hand, is not a peace, but a forced right.

So, ultimately, right and wrong are personal visions. These visions affect our circumstance, no matter how well intended or greedy they are.