Everyones Right, Everyones Wrong

prompt: http://http://www.litmuse.net/prompt_right_wrong

There was once a man who sold drugs to support his family. His wife was disable due to an automobile accident. The family recieved only six hundred dollars a month for living expenses, along with the twelve hundred the man recieved as a plumber wasn't enough to support the family of five. The family expeditiously fell into poverty, when the man's employer decreased his pay because of slow business. The responsibility of caring for three kids and two adults including himself, the man resorted to selling drugs until he was financially stable. Menace drug dealer or desperate father in a financial crisis? Does his "moral" motive justify his means? Is he "right" or "wrong" about how he supports his family? What constitutes something to be "right" or "wrong"? These answers could never be based on universal truths. We as one could never come to an agreement of what is "right" or "wrong".


Decision making is a vital part of an individual's life. The decisions we make are the forces that determine the directions of one's fate or destiny. I firmly believe that every action has an equal reaction. My "moral' belief system is more "absolutism" than "relativism", but a combination of the two. I believe a well balance of the two, "relativism" and "absolutism," fashions a reasonable moral belief system. Excessive "relativism" creates tyranny, endorses slavery, genocide and other inhumane decisions that degrade humanity as a whole. Society itself can not determine what is "right" or "wrong". Inherently, to some instinct, we humans can interpret what is "right" or "wrong". We, as humans, all get some internal feeling towards persecution of another human, or animal of any sort for the matter. The internal feeling is upsetting, when we witness someone being mistreated in any inhumane form. The "norms" of society teaches us to supress those internal feelings that acknowledge to us something is "wrong". As humans, we are highly sophisticated creatures with numerous abilities and capacities beyond our full comprehension. A physical body that heals itself, alarms itself and sustains itself; I think, could easily acquaint us in a direction to a form of life thats more peaceful and harmonious. True human "morals" are accompanied by the laws of the universe. Nature abides by a universal law or code of existence. Flowers don't just grow, an intelligence of some sort governed by a law or code enables the flower to be a flower. This is evident in all living things that function accordingly and harmoniously to nature.


Moral absolutism has to be also administered accordingly. In excess, "absolutism" would distort certain laws; dealth penalty, abortion, gun control, sex education, etc. Sensitive issuses of society that are essential in making the world function. "Absolutism" is based on the uplifting of humanity and the nature of human evolution. The Universe and Earth are harmonious beings, working together, inter-dependent of one another. Humans are by far the most intelligent creatures on this planet, so there has to be some universal, intuitive, biological element that dicerns "right" from "wrong" in order for life to function harmoniously. I agree with the absolutist that all humans have some sort of inherent knowledge of "right" and "wrong", and if that element isn't present does it make you any less of a human, beastly in nature.
Regressing to the opening paragraph, was the father justified for his actions of supporting his family with drug sale profits? Conscious of any humans in danger or harm due to the father's dealings would , I think, be wrong. It may be considered a means of survival, but its not in harmony with nature and drug dealing is accompanied with many detrimental agencies that aren't beneficial to society. Basic moral rules I abide by : if it doesn't help, it hurts!