Can right be wrong?


To believe that what we do is right is reward in and of itself, however, this belief does not always derive from truth. We can be sincere and yet be sincerely mistaken. We can be honest but, nonetheless, be honestly in error, and, we can believe with a belief that is predicated upon a false premise. Sincerity, honesty, and belief are praiseworthy and admirable virtues that should characterize, in all things, the activities of humankind, however, they are not a guarantee of truth. Humankind is frail, riddled with shortcomings, and prone to error, however much they may pursue truth and rightness with diligence and determination. The annals of the history of humankind are replete with atrocities and depravity committed in the name of righteousness and morality. Examples of moral rectitude descending into moral turpitude. What is required is a yardstick, a criterion, a standard by which to measure and on which to base our conduct and from which derive universal principles of right and wrong that can be recognized and agreed to by each and every person.

A yardstick and/or criteria must be one which all may recognize and accept. Consider, for instance, the concept of God. All of the major religions advance the premise that He is All-powerful, All-knowing, All-loving, All-compassionate, All-forgiving etc. and is without blemish or shortcoming, has no imperfections, and holds the entire universe and all it possesses securely in His grasp. Nothing occurs without His knowledge. And yet it is not uncommon for discussion of God to drag Him down to the level of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, a schizophrenic, unpredictable, player of favorites, and a higher power afflicted with an abundance of human frailties. God can be both God and not-God at the same time. God is just but plays favorites. God is loving and compassionate but permits suffering and pain and cruelty to exist. God is portrayed as being in the ‘Image of humankind’ rather than the other way around. It is not possible to reconcile this misrepresentation and distortion of God. The solution to this paradox lies securely in the convoluted concept of God embraced by the perpetrators of these contradictions.

How is it possible for God to be both God and Not-God? How can He be both All-Loving and hateful? How can He be both All-Forgiving and vengeful? How can He be both All-Compassionate and jealous? How can He be both Infinite and human? On the one hand we have the virtues of God and on the other their counterpart or antithesis. They are not the same but God is all too often represented as possessing and expressing both. Sadly, God is represented as being human with all its shortcomings and deficiencies. This misrepresentation alone is warrant for each and every person to conduct their own investigation into the truth of any philosophy or principle with which they are confronted. To be influenced by the beliefs and convictions of others is a reasonable starting point but to fail to subject them to the scrutiny of reason and logic and criteria that are acceptable to all humankind is akin to driving along a twisting and circuitous highway while blind. A person needs to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Anything less is fraught with danger and deception. To become prey to or to descend into the abyss of someone else’s misconceptions is an affront to the nobility of the human spirit and an indictment of our laxity in the exercise of our inherent virtues and attributes.