Right and wrong are ideas that are in themselves hard to define, as are good and evil. What is right? How do we know when something is right or wrong? Morals are principals of right and wrong behaviors, ethics - the study of the principles relating to right and wrong. One of the confounding things about studying right and wrong is that often the line separating one from the other changes depending on the observer.

Follow up:

We talk a lot about things that are right and things that are wrong. We think a lot about it too, because nearly every judgment we make, every decision that is considered evokes an often transparent process within us that weighs pros and cons, measures and determines, takes into consideration external factors, hypothesizes consequences and produces, hopefully, a decision. So while we're clearly capable of in depth analysis, we can examine morals from a standpoint of the consequences of any act.

In last week's Wiki of the Week, I used a simple analogy of a soldier, let's call him Jack, in a trench, taking aim on an enemy soldier who we'll call John, climbing out of the trench across the field. Jack shoots John, John's side is demoralized and flees in defeat. Jack's team wins the day, builds houses and settles down for a happy life of barley farming and beer brewing.

Was Jack right in killing John? If I stand as an observer behind Jack and his line of men, I can conclude that Jack's action brought much good. Jack's people survived, lived happily ever after. It's hard to disagree that from Jack's perspective it was all good; that Jack was morally right. What if instead, I stand as an observer behind John, watch him fall to Jack's bullet and his men flee? His men scatter with many lost to hunger or exposure. A few manage to flee into more friendly areas where they take marginal jobs as laborers and spend the remainder of their days impoverished and ill cared for. From this observer's perspective, Jack was not only morally wrong, but an evil barbarian who did nothing but sow injustice and death.

Both of our previous observers were in a sense caught within a "Prison of oneself". The information which they obtained and used to make a moral judgment was incomplete as a result of their own bias, both natural and self imposed. Examining good and bad can also be done theoretically from the standpoint of an impartial observer, one who is omniscient and can examine all of the ramifications of any one act. If he examines Jack's killing of John, he may see 100 men go on to happy lives, 100 others who suffer. If he has no bias, who is to say which side is good and which bad? Who is to claim one act righteous and another evil?

"Hmm..." you say, as you sip your Sazerac.

Well fortunately for us, we don't have to worry ourselves about things like who is ultimately right and wrong, what is good or bad, who is good and who is evil. Nearly every one of us was born into a culture and society that has provided a ready structure to make these determinations simply and easily without thought or consideration. This is because almost universally, the side that is right is ours. The people who are good are ourselves.

Your Wiki of the Week is:

Consequentialism

Please enjoy it with a cocktail, as man wasn't meant to weigh heavy matters alone.

TL;DR - Jack was hungry, killed a pig, made a pork sandwich with broccoli rabe and provolone, and ate it. Is Jack good or evil?