Philosophies of a Righteous Mind

Greetings! My name is Aarav Pradhan and I am a Senior Editor and Columnist for the WIN Times magazine! My interests include speaking and debating, which is often felt through my focus on argumentative and introspective questions in my articles. Writing is a superpower that can convey more meaning than any action or emotion ever could. I am excited to continue last year’s column, Philosophies of a Righteous Mind, discussing moralities and the boundaries of our ethics.

Most of us have an arbitrary understanding of what “right” and “wrong” means, one is in accordance with the law and morality and the other is against it. While this definition is fool proof, it lacks the consideration of where law and morality separate from each other.

While learning about leading bodies, we talk about fairly devised rules set through comprehensive ethical considerations. But in many cases, situations render themselves so drastically different from any of their alternate possibilities that the same rules fail to apply to the situation. Let us take a classic example of the rule many set: “Stealing is wrong”, stealing is indeed wrong, but fails to apply in situations like that portrayed in the renowned book: “Robin Hood”. Robin worked on the ideology of “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor”, while his actions act against laws and the conventionally “right” action, many still consider his actions to be morally correct.

This brings us to the dilemma of where to distinguish between right and wrong because something that is considered very wrong in one scenario would be considered equally right in another. Ethics study the very basis of why something is right or wrong, and lawmakers, government officials, and even student leaders unconsciously use ethical consideration to devise fair rules, thus showing the multidimensionality of something that is perceived to be fairly straightforward.

In many cases, the morally correct thing to do strays away from the ethically correct or lawfully correct thing to do, hence each scenario has to be viewed with a completely unbiased and new perception of ethics, making it a very mentally strenuous field. A “cost-benefit analysis” approach may not be applicable in every situation, this is where the concept of “justice” is added to the equation of ethical consideration. Beyond an analysis of what the situation is, a clear analysis of how a decision or action would impact the key stakeholders of a scenario would also be vital, for this purpose, most nations set a dedicated justice system to consider all aspects of multifaceted issues.

Consequences, as we discussed in our previous article, are inevitable in any situation. But choosing the right consequence and making the most “correct” decision brings up questions that many still struggle to answer. To see these ideas being applied to one of the most pressing dilemmas of the 21st century, look out for the next edition of Philosophes of a Righteous Mind.