Who Determines Right And Wrong?

I have been wondering about right and wrong, which in my view is the soul of morality.  That is hardly something new of course, but my inquiry is really about who gets to determine right and wrong.  Is it each individual as he thinks best, or is it society as a whole?

For example:

Is it “right” or “wrong” to kill animals and eat them?

In this example, I am deliberately picking something that is at least mostly non-political so that we do not sidetrack our analysis with emotions in thinking this through. However, as is obvious, peeling away this onion will no doubt be useful in the issues facing society today or in the future.

Most people would say that killing and eating animals is right – or allowable – or at least not wrong. But some believe – even passionately and fervently – that doing this is absolutely terribly wrong.

So let’s say that I am one of the ones who believes it is wrong.  I am now out of step with the bulk of our society.  Now what?

My question is whether right and wrong are determined by the majority of the people in a society or do I – in my sole discretion – get to determine it?

You could certainly see someone saying:  “I know perfectly well what is right and what is wrong and I don’t care how many people agree with me.”  That sounds kind of cool.

But that argument proves way too much.  Indeed, I could be a cult leader believing fervently that the world will end in 100 days if I don’t commit a human sacrifice.  And my statement about me knowing right from wrong would still apply on its surface.  And before you dismiss that as crazy, think of all the insane conspiracy theories circulating, and with each day it seems they get more and more far-fetched. People making up their own determinations of right and wrong sound good if it is Mahatmas Gandhi making the decision, but is certainly fraught with some serious peril if just anyone could do that.

So I am comfortable concluding that there is an intellectual hole in the view that the individual gets to determine right from wrong.

But now let’s look at it the other way.  Does the majority of a society get to determine right and wrong?

I think that is even more flawed.  Hundreds of years ago the majority of society burned witches at the stake — a thousand years before that human sacrifice was an acceptable practice — and in Greek society a thousand years before that pedophilia was perfectly okay.

Yet all of the foregoing are dramatically shunned today as clearly wrong.  Humanity has moved forward in its assessment of what is right and what is wrong.

And it is a tough row to hoe to conclude that if a majority of society wanted to mistreat – or even kill or destroy – a minority in society, that that would be right. Indeed, we see this go on all over the world in various forms and invariably believe it is quite clearly wrong.

So I would say there is an even larger intellectual hole in the view that the majority of society should determine what is right and what is wrong.

Blended into this philosophical question is a view that we humans presumably share which is that somehow humanity should move its definition of morality forward in a way that is, well, right and not wrong.  So this is an important issue to think through.

Having said that, so far I haven’t advanced the ball have I?   I have identified a philosophical problem – but both solutions seem solidly flawed.

Before I give a conclusion, as an aside, I do wonder whether in 100 years people will still be eating meat or look back at us meat-eaters with revulsion?

Okay here is what I think: I think every person could indeed have the right to decide for himself what is right and wrong, but in order to be justified in having this right that person should have three obligations:

• To study the issue
• To listen to both sides of the views of others – both the majority view and all minority views
• To think it through deeply and challenge assumptions – like a good philosopher

I would call these three obligations the Morality Test. If you pass the Morality Test for a particular issue, then –yes – you are now rewarded by society with the right to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.  And the rest of society has to take the risk that your decision could turn out to be a bad one.

In other words, you – as that cult leader I mentioned about– might pass the Morality Test, with disastrous consequences that society would have to bear.  Yes – that individual result would be terrible – but my assessment is that overall – on a risk/reward basis – humanity is better off with individuals who pass the Morality Test having the right to determine right and wrong than the other outcome, which would be that the majority gets to determine right and wrong.  I think that danger is a greater one than allowing individuals who pass the Morality Test to make their own decisions.

Going a step further, once you pass the Morality Test for an issue, then luck – or divine provenance — intervenes.  This is the future determination of society whether to accept your decision as truly right, which may or may not happen.

If you think the world is going to end in 100 days and you are sacrificing another person to stave off this result, then most likely you either (i) failed the foregoing Morality Test in the first place and therefore lost your right to determine right and wrong or (ii) even if you passed the Morality Test, society will not move in your direction and you certainly will not be rewarded for your view.  [Note: unless somehow you could really prove that the human sacrifice did in fact save the world, which would be quite tough to do]

Alternatively, if your Morality Test leads humanity to a higher level – i.e., eradicating pedophilia, burning witches, human sacrifice and – maybe even meat eating – then you have done the world a service and would presumably be revered for your convictions and strength in going against the will of the majority.

So that is my analysis: If you pass the Morality Test on an issue then you get to determine what is right and wrong and society takes the risk you will in fact damage it in return for the upside of not having society itself make the determination

But then future provenance – or luck – in hindsight, decides if you really were right or wrong in the first place

Q.E.D.

Bruce

PS: By the way, this is not relevant to the foregoing analysis, and I am not sure why but recently I have been feeling quite guilty about eating meat and about how the animals are treated by us humans.  I am not going full vegetarian but I am moving in that direction.