Right in Wrong; Wrong in Right

We all have different definitions of the difference between right and wrong.  Family, friends, teachers, coaches, religious figures, and society as a whole constantly shape our perception.  From the time we are old enough to comprehend language, we are dragooned by a ceaseless barrage of stories meant to teach us lessons about how to live life.  Share, be humble, work hard; the moral teachings are relentless.  However, as we grow older, we learn that right and wrong are not two disparate lands separated by a barrier of unyielding steel.  Rather, the boundary appears quite malleable, and concrete definitions for right and wrong seem elusive.

            What’s the difference between cheating and using resources cleverly?  What’s the difference between lying and keeping a different perspective on the truth?  What’s the difference between stealing and taking something rightfully earned through skill and effort?  What’s the difference between murder and fighting for a cause?   Period. Exclamation mark!  (Parentheses)  Colon: There, now I don’t feel like I used a disproportionate amount of question marks.

            To relate to the piece we wrote our essays on this week in class (and to keep my post a length people are willing to read), I’ll focus on the concept of stealing.  The author defined sin as “what you took and didn’t give back.”  Interestingly enough, stealing is one moral issue that our society teaches is acceptable in some circumstances, glorifying it with the many tales of Robin Hood and his merry men.  They steal money and goods from those who have plenty and give to those who need it more, a lifestyle that is considered heroic and good.  But wait … isn’t stealing “wrong”?  If a hacker today takes money from billionaire bank accounts and gives it to those dying of starvation and thirst, or uses it to end fighting, or spends it to protect endangered animals – is the hacker sinning?  The hacker takes – but the hacker gives back. 

I suppose my view on morals in general, put succinctly, is thus: If you do good, that’s good.  Means and methods may be considered bad, but I believe that a person can do bad things, for a good reason, and be a good person.  I would imagine morals not as right and wrong, but right in wrong.  If there is right in something called “wrong,” it can be justified.  The problem is that this view means anything at all can be justified.  If I remove an incompetent leader to save a political state, that could be right.  If I cheat on test to get good grades to get a good job where I can do stuff to help the world, that could be right.  If I steal to give to a cause that helps people, that could be right.  If I give back, then that is the right in the wrongs I might do.

But … I don’t kidnap the idiots to put new people in charge.  I don’t cheat on tests.  I don’t illegally redistribute wealth to benefit other people.  Why?  Because I’ve been trained to do what is fairy-tale good, not real-world good; Justice System good, not God’s good.  As much as I know that in the long run, a choice in question may lead to greater good than another choice, I often choose the choice parents, teachers, and laws say is right, even if in my heart I suspect an alternative is truly best.  My hope is that God forgives my “right” decisions, and I pray for the strength to make the right decision in God’s view, however “wrong” it may be, when God wills it.

It’s probably right to stop editing now; have a fantastic day.