Morals. Right vs. wrong. Humanities endless history to establish the perfect laws. Laws to protect and continue life in the/a controlled or controllable enviroment. Morals by some can be defined as natural instinct to not inflict upon another that wich we ourselves would not merit in recieving. Such as stealing is moraly wrong since we wish not to be without; such as murder for we wish not to have our life taken. But, morals is more finely defined by justification. If a man kills another man some would say that is moraly wrong. Now if the son of the murdered man kills the murderer, is this moraly wron? Justification. If a man kills his nieghbor and enslave his wife, society would look upon that man as a sphycopath and a murderer without morals. Now if a country invades and conquers its neighboring country in the name of their god, is this moraly wrong? Justification. So how could morals be of natural nature if it must be justified? And if it is safe to say that all humanity is imperfect, then who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Or even still, is justification just a word to mask minipulation? If two wrongs don’t make a right, does three or more wrongs make it justified?

Advertisements