A common theme when asking people the difference between right and wrong these days is the answer is 'It's subjective'. Is it really though? Does moral relativism really exist or do we abdicate responsibility by claiming that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter?
Lets look at an example of an action where right and wrong are blurred:
A Palestinian man detonates a suicide vest in a crowded Israeli coffee shop. The man has come from an oppressed background, his family members have been killed by Israelis and he has been brought up to hate Israel and all it's inhabitants. He has been groomed by his Imam to commit the suicide attack in the name of Islam. His brother constructed the bomb for him and another friend knew he was going to carry out the attack but never reported it. 18 Israeli men, women and children die in the attack. None of them had ever met the bomber before.
Who is to blame here? Is the blame shared among some or all of the people involved? Is the Imam to blame because he groomed the man? Is his friend to blame for not reporting the attack? Are the Israelis to blame because they occupy Palestinian land? Is the brother to blame for creating the weapon? Is the man to blame for detonating the bomb? Is the Israeli government to blame for their actions against Palestinians? Is the Palestinian leadership to blame for condoning suicide bombings?
Have a good think about it and make a decision before reading on. Maybe you could comment on who, at this stage, you think the blame lies with?
It seems rather convoluted. There are so many direct and indirect parties involved. If you remove one of the people, like the Imam, would the attack still have happened? If the friend had reported the attack, would those people still be alive?
Simply put, the blame is directly with the bomber. There is literally no-one else to blame.
Why is this?
The result of HIS ACTIONS directly caused the deaths of all those people. The bomber has free will and agency, no matter how much he has been groomed and conditioned by the actions of the Israelis or the Imam.
The definitions of right and wrong are easily defined. **A right action is one that does not cause harm to any sentient being or their property. A wrong action is the antithesis of this, it's opposite. **
It really is that simple.
So the Imam didn't cause harm to anyone in the coffee shop, not did the bomb maker, nor the Israeli government. The only harm was caused by the actions of the bomber, no-one else.
There is no relativity to this. It is not dependent on a point of view. Right and wrong are objective and to think otherwise simply abdicates responsibility and is a dangerous mindset.
This is something that should be taught in schools and by parents but it is increasingly not. The next generation must know the difference between right and wrong and that there IS such a thing as blame - who is to blame? The aggressor, the person who INITIATED VIOLENCE. This is key, as defensive force is justified, but only to an immediate aggressor, not to people related to them or domestic in the same country.
I hope this makes sense. I think this is an important issue and I'd love to hear what you think about it below.
.jpg)