Friday, January 16, 2009

The Wrongness of the Right

Going from the same premise of morality and truth as the determinants of right and wrong the answer to Gayle’s question of “is it ever wrong to do the right thing?” the answer is a bit easier but more complicated. The first thing that would be needed to understand is the fact that there is nothing that can be declared as wrong in and of itself.

Now, that may appear to contradict the theme of the previous post of the opposite question but in reality it does not. If something were wrong in and of itself then it would be wrong for that thing to exist in the first place. It is a part of the nature of our existence. Since we will not declare that our very existence is wrong then behaviors according to the nature of that existence cannot be in and of itself wrong. The best example of this would be the example of sexual behaviors.

Sex is a part of the nature of every life form. It is the primary means by which life forms procreate. In addition, while there may be controversy in regards to procreation it still is regarded as one of the highest of morally righteous act man can do. We even have an institution that addresses this. It is the institution of marriage. It is through procreation that we have families and we see marriage as the beginning stage of beginning a family unit. Even science recognizes the importance of it by stating that families is the foundational basis of a society. Now, I believe that we have established that having sex is a righteous behavior.

However, can we say that it is wrong to do the right thing. The answer is yes. The rest of my proof as well as the example of sexual behaviors was picked deliberately and I think you’ll see why from the rest of this thesis.

It is wrong to do the right thing under the circumstance that man has described as statutory rape. This is a situation where one person of that consensual act was not of the age of consent. Thus, by definition of the law we have a case of rape although no rape ever occurred. The reasoning being that a person not of the age of consent is not mature enough to be held responsible for the decisions of their behaviors. Thus, that person is viewed as being the victim of the criminal act of rape against them.

This is the case although that minor aided and abetted in that criminal act and may even have been the instigator of that criminal act. We can even declare that, in reality, in some cases it was the adult who was seduced by the minor although legally we cannot we cannot declare that. We now have a minor participating in a criminal act but not held responsible for their part in that criminal act but we see also that same minor will be held responsible for participating in any other criminal act. In fact in some criminal act that he may participate in he will be seen and treated as an adult. Don’t ask me to explain the logic behind all of this because I can’t explain it to myself logically.

Now, for another twist in this criminal act we can see that it will no longer be a criminal act but one of mutual consent. The only thing we need to do is change the locale in which that criminal act was committed. Jerry Lee Lewis in his marriage to a fifteen-year-old girl is a good example of this.

So, we find a situation where it is wrong to something that by the laws of nature is right. We can even see situations where the wrong thing to do is seen as being the right thing to do also. For when Jerry takes his bride to a different locale he may be taking her to a place where the laws and norms of that locale declares that he would be committing a criminal act by having sexual relations with his bride. Yet by law he would not be raping her by statutory terms or by terms of reality unless you consider the reality of the age and immaturity of the girl.

Have I brought a grin to your face yet as I guide you through this maze of right and wrong? I know I was chuckling at each thought I wrote down at the whole oxymoronic ways of our sense of right and wrong. Here are some more.

We have two teenagers who are, by the ideas of statutory rape committing a criminal act. Since neither one of them is of the age of consent then we must declare that both teenagers are the victims of this criminal act. In other words, both teenagers raped either other by definition of the need of consent and both were raped. We now have a criminal act as committed. We also know the culprits of this criminal act. We have knowledge of the victims of that criminal act yet one thing we do not have. We do not have a criminal for the district attorney to prosecute.

As a result of this criminal act one of the victims is empregnated. Now this victim has a choice. This victim of a criminal offense can either carry that pregnancy to term or that victim may have that new life within her aborted. This choice will be the choice of that victim and the choice of the victim alone. That victim needs no one else to make or help her make that decision. In other words the norms and laws of this society has declared that this victim of a criminal act has the maturity even though she may not be of the age of consent to make the decision of whether or not that life within her will be aborted or not.

What is it about abortion that it requires less maturity in regards to making a decision then having sexual relations with another person requires?

We cannot forget the other victim of this criminal act without a criminal. If that female victim makes a decision to give birth to that child of rape that male victim will have to support the upbringing of that child.

So, again I ask what is it about having sexual relations that requires greater maturity than is required of supporting a family?

So, is it ever wrong to do the right thing? The answer can only be yes. It is the circumstances or situations that would be the determinant not the act itself that declares it wrong.

I had fun writing this post and hope I was able to bring a smile to those that read it and as they see how self-contradictory our ideas of right and wrong can be. But more important I hope that by this post the reader can see why it is so important that laws and norms be consistent and that they should not be ever changing from generation to generation.


BB-Idaho said...

It is true that most animal life reproduces by sexual means, with a few bizarre exeptions, like the ameoba, which simply splits in half
(and is not subject, I guess to rape). To say nothing of our peculiar hermaphroditic friends, the angleworm !
Care of resulting progeny
varies from none to the intensive, generally in proportion to the higher the life-form. I was reading the other day that genetic
paleoanthropologists think that 'modern' humans made the
move from typical primate family behavior (alpha male, lots of girls who each took care of their own) to our conventional male-female-children bond, eg family life, about 100,000 years ago AND
somewhat later, perhaps 50,000 BC,
began rudimentary language. It is language which separates the laws of nature from our more elaborated
laws of society. In nature, there is no right nor wrong, but simple instinct (Mother Nature approves), but with language, we generate more subtle, more complex concepts.
So 'wrong', 'right', as you note,
may possible vary with time, location, circumstance. Usually, though, law is that which is promoted and followed by that society which formulated it; thus the wording may be viewed as general or specific, binding or non-binding. Since I have confused myself at this point, I would just go on to note that anyone who has been around housecats mating must conclude that rape also exists in
other life-forms. :)

The Griper said...

oh i'd agree with you on your assessment of rape in other life forms. we would also denote that it is submission not consent as it is defined that eventually seen by the female of the life forms to that act of rape.

so by this, we can say that we have populated this earth by rape since women at one time was not only expected to submit to a man's need but that the laws said or implied that a husband could not rape his wife even though he did. thus, he did not need the consent of his wife

Gayle said...

I am patting myself on the back because you took my suggestion and ran with it, so I am the instigator of this mind-boggling post. :)

Griper, I followed your logic. Should I be worried? LOL!

I don't know what you do, or did, for a living, but I think you would have made an excellent lawyer. I thought you might have mentioned it in your profile, but no such luck. I did enjoy the answer to the profile question though. Hilarious!

The Griper said...

should you be worried, nahhh. lol

if you can the logic of this post then its me that should be worried. lol

as for being a lawyer, yucks. i have enough trouble trying to stay logical. its a lawyer's job to make thing look illogical.

Average American said...

I read your post and got dizzy.

The Griper said...

that's American laws for ya, AA. and we are suppose to be a nation ruled by law rather than by men too. seems both can be illogical, huh? lol

but then again it is lawyers that enact laws. maybe there is our answer. lol


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster