What makes something right or wrong?

[hmkpoker]

I've noticed a lot of the questions posed in this forum ask whether something is right or wrong. While I find a lot of these questions to be very interesting, I'm often at a loss of words for argument, since my perception of "right" may be different from someone else's, and therefore would need to be clarified beforehand.

I percieve these notions of right and wrong to be relative to a particular goal, and servient to a particular subject (hence why there is so much disagreement). The most common subjects that I see are as follows, and the question of "would it be right to let a hundred strangers die to ensure my survival?" is applied to each.

1. THE INDIVIDUAL SELF. The subject is the person himself, and codes of right and wrong are made relative to the self's preservation and well-being. In this case, it is detrimental to the individual self to die for people whose losses would not affect him otherwise, so it is RIGHT to let a hundred strangers die for my own survival.

2. THE WHOLE OF MANKIND. Decisions are made on the basis of "what is best for humanity on the whole." A decision should be made on the basis of the number of people that will benefit from it. In our example, it is WRONG to let a hundred strangers die to ensure my survival, because the alternative choice would harm more people.

3. GOD. Religious dogma dictates that actions be made with the best interests of a divine being in mind. The argument as to whether it's right to kill a hundred strangers depends entirely on the will of said divine being, and must be interpretted accordingly.

4. A PEOPLE OR NATION. Actions are made servient to a select group of people, be they characterised by color, creed, ethnicity or whatever. Let's assume the subject is America and the American people. In this case, I guess one could argue either way. I would argue that it is WRONG to kill 100 people to ensure my survival, because in the absence of other information, we are led to conclude that these people could exist anywhere on earth. Let's say America comprises about 5% of the world's population. We can expect 5 Americans to die for me, which would be more detrimental to America than the alternative of my death. However, it would arguably be RIGHT to let 100 American enemies die to preserve my life.

I feel that the subject around whom we are basing our moral decisions, as well as that subject's goals, need to be clarified before we can logically argue whether it's right or wrong.

The question of "which of these subjects should be our focus" would make an excellent debate.

Thoughts? Comments?

-hmk