Good and bad, right and wrong

What we call good and bad, right and wrong are vague words themselves if you don’t justify your words further. This article tends to give few theories which could be helpful to specify further to judge whether the matter or action is morally right or wrong. There are following two approaches. 

De ontological approach -also known as non consequentialists theory.  This theory is derived by Emmanuel Kant. In this theory action is important. Human decides what is wrong and write. This theory describes human is rational and considers all principles of livings, that can be laws regulations and ethical values.

There are further three elements or maxims to test. If all three are satisfied the action is morally right.

1. Consistency- Action can be right if everyone follows the same underlying principles , for example murder is immoral  because if that were moral no human would exist. lying is immoral because there would be no ‘truth’ word if other way round.

2. Human dignity- Human should treat other Human with respect, for example if someone selling turmeric powder(beshar) approaching door to door in Kathmandu. People call him, “Hey ‘beshare’”. Yes, he sells beshar and his body is coated with beshar , he looks yellow but he is human as the buyer. Respecting him and treating him a human, not beshare, is human dignity.

3. Universality- The concept is the action is right if the action taker will be comfortable when their action is brought in world media and people of the world think that is ‘right’.(but dont forget lots of misinformation in media especially the media controlled by rich countries. Most of the people in the world watch or read headline news and they make decision, some are into ‘celeb and footy’ culture only . I am, personally,  doubtful in this concept). This has got link with maxim consistency as well.

 

Teleological approach- This is also called consequentialists theory. In this theory outcome or consequence is important. If the ourcome is beneficial for the individuals and greatest number of the people in the community the action deems right. For example Maoists run violent ‘People war’ can be justified ‘right’ based on this theory if Maoists bring  positive changs in terms of political, social and economic structure in the country. On the other hand that deems ‘wrong’ if they fail to work for the people.

There are two sub theories to test.

1. Egoism- Action is morally right if the decision maker decides in order to pursue their desire or interest at the same t the outcome will benefit the society or that is the desire of the society. For example, politician will not take bribe or inducement while signing contract with ADB or world bank in the project or melamchi water project because the outcome ,consequences isn’t desired by the politician (ie. losing election as former ‘big’ parties were defeated in the CA election In Nepal) and at the same time the outcome of the action of politician is desire and interest of nepali people.

2. Utilitarianism- The action is morally right if the result in the highest degree of ‘good’ for the greatest number of people affected by the action. Highest degree of good means positive part is higher than the outweigh negative effects. Mind you there is not clear positive and negative effects in the society always, it might split into two. For example building dam to produce electricity. This action might leave negative impact in ecosystem and other habitat of the animals and so on. Other side the electricity will open the opportunity of development as this is the infrastructure of several industries.  

 

 

From the above discussion, the approaches and theories can be useful to decide what is wrong and what is right but still not hard and fast rule here as well. So many detailed information should be gathered and analysis required being objective to reach the conclusion in same complicated case. The decision of decision maker might vary if followed either approaches described above. The decision also will be affected either decision maker being pragmatic or absolutist.