The Difference Between Right and Wrong

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The purpose of ethics and morality is to work out the rules that help us to distinguish right and wrong. Despite the differences between the definition of right and wrong in various cultures, times, and among individuals, I consider that the main wrong is to harm other human beings, and right is to benefit and help others and yourself. Not harming animals is essential as well, but the present-day humanity cannot do without meat, fur, and animal testing. For me, the idea of responsibility toward environment means that we should care about future generations.

Ethics, according to Webster Dictionary, is a set of rules that are based on beliefs about what is good and what is bad (Ethics par. 1).

As Thomas Jefferson believed, humankind was by default granted with a moral sense that made empathy possible (Ferling 188).

The same complicated issue has attracted the attention of M. Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist. He found out that moral empathy was a tool of our survival during the evolution (Jacobus 417-418).

In earlier times, ethics was closely tied (or even substituted by) religion. According to Irish Murdoch, the idea of virtue is some kind of a bridge between religion and ethics. The idea of virtue is an essential contributor to human behavior. The demand that we should be virtuous or try to become good, Murdoch states, is something that goes beyond explicit calls of duty (Jacobus 363-364).

So, ethics is a number of certain rules based on the beliefs about good and bad, no matter if it is connected with any religion or not. It is, however, not an easy task to distinguish the good from the bad. Different cultures and even different time periods of the same culture offer their own understandings of right and wrong.

For instance, a 15-year-old pregnant girl is a shock to Western society; it is something definitely wrong, and the father of her child should be punished. For a Middle Eastern country, it is perfectly normal. Slavery was a common thing for antiquity, but it is a crime nowadays. Moreover, different people define wrong and right in different ways. William Wilberforce and the slave traders lived in the same country and time period, but for the former slave trade was a wrong thing to do, whereas the latter would not agree with him (Kerr-Ritchie 534).

Despite these crucial differences in ethical principles of cultures, epochs, and individuals, throughout human history there has been, and there is, a gradual movement toward an ideal an ideal, according to which no human being must harm another human being. To my opinion, this should be the primary ethical principle: it is wrong when it harms others (or yourself), and it is right when it does not harm or it benefits others or yourself.

As an example, there is no sin in craving and pursuing wealth, but it becomes wrong once you decide to deceive someone for building a fortune. A person, I am sure, should behave according to this principle, i.e. not harm others, if not for a clear conscience, then at least if they want others not to harm them.

Another question that arises is whether the rules of ethics and morality coincide with civil laws. It is usually considered right to obey laws and wrong to disobey them. But, as usual, there are exceptions. M.L. King Jr., who fought against unjust laws and for the rights of black people, wrote on the issue: We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was legal& It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitlers Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. (Jacobus 384).

Some thinkers consider that ethical principles should be applied equally to all humans. On the one hand, I tend to agree: I cannot justify discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, disability, or other factors like these.

On the other hand, while this notion can be successfully applied to people in general, we can face hardships when applying it to some precise cases. For example, it is wrong to take an individuals freedom from them, but what about criminals, who belong in prison? It is a bad thing to force someone to do something against their will, but what if a mentally ill person is dangerous for society and does not want to be under treatment? I must admit that ethical principles cannot be applied equally to all people and that the rejection of this conclusion would do more wrong than right.

Apart from that, an idea exists that ethical principles should go beyond humans and apply to animals as well. Probably the earliest system of beliefs to suggest this was Buddhism. According to Buddhist views, humans should not harm animals and should feel equal respect to the lives of animals and humans (Buddhism and Animals par. 2). Nevertheless, even Buddhism does not forbid experimenting on animals (Buddhism and Animals par.10-11), and Buddha did not directly prohibit eating meat (Buddhism and Animals par. 13).

Animals testing helped develop quite a number of vital things, such as medicine. Sometimes severe frosts leave people no choice but to wear fur, and not every geographical zone has enough nutritious plants for humans to make up for not eating meat. For instance, the traditional diet of Inuit is based mainly on meat, and they can hardly sustain without eating it (Duhaime, Chabot and Gaudreault 92). It is difficult to distinguish right and wrong here. I agree that deliberate violence to animals is immoral, but I cannot reject the importance of animal testing, wearing fur, and meat consumption.

To go even further, ethical principles can be applied to the environment as well. First of all, irresponsible treatment of environmental resources, such as extensive land use or overexploitation of energy sources, is a violation of the above-mentioned principle to do no harm to other humans. By worsening the ecological situation, we worsen the life of future generations. A lot of thinkers believe that we should pay respect to nature itself, and for that reason spoiling nature is immoral. Conversely, I consider that nature is stronger than us, and it will find a way to cope with changes, and then it is us who will be in danger.

To conclude, for me the central ethical rule is to do no harm and to help other human beings. It is immoral to harm animals without serious purpose; unfortunately, there is still no way to avoid hurting them for meat and fur and during experiments. Our responsibility toward the environment is our duty not to nature, which is strong and able to transform, but to future generations.

Works Cited

Buddhism and Animals 2009. Web.

Duhaime, Gerard, Marcelle Chabot and Marco Gaudreault. Food Consumption Patterns and Socioeconomic Factors Among the Inuit of Nunavik. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41.2 (2002): 91-118. Print.

Ethics. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web.

Ferling, John E. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2013. Print.

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. 9th ed. 2013. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martins. Print.

Kerr-Ritchie, Jeffrey R. Reflections on the Bicentennial of the Abolition of the British Slave Trade. The Journal of African American History 93.4 (2008): 532-542. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Difference Between Right and Wrong

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)