what is good is you, what is wrong is what you think it is

One should reside on the bright side, they always say. It's an ancient and universal presumption that there are always at least two axises: dark and bright, good and evil, and right and wrong. As a mammal and as a creature whose value lies beyond flesh and bones, we were born into the society which has already provided us a list of what-to-dos and what-not-to-dos.

photograph source

Few questions, however, came up from within my heart: Is the society a representative of "god/absolutism"? Does "god(s)" have the absolute power? Is power itself the ultimate determination to tell us what to do and not to do? Even if god/God/gods is real and one (or many) of the society's perceptions toward God/gods/god is actually correct, are we born bound to that entity? What is the origin of "right" and what is the provenance of "wrong"?

One day, Socrates preached about an idea that there is always one determined torch which can always shine throughout any environment. He believed that every humans have unconsciously compromised about one and a few things being considered as a standard value in the world and they are applicable from one end to the other. Thus, eventhough the values are not written in any formal or informal law, Socrates believed that the person would have already brought the moral value within them right after they were born.

photograph source

Unfortunately, I have to submit a motion of disagreement and I will bluntly write my easy deduction in the following two paragraphs.

Let's take, for a sample, a smile. Some persons regard a smile as a universal language as it would always be valued as a good remark. But, there was this one day back then. That was the day when a person with a darker skin smiled sincerely to an Anglo-Saxon with a fine whip in his hand and the sorry smiler got whipped to death after that. First (rhetorical) question: does the value of smiling stay the same?

photograph source

Another easy and simple sample would be an act of murder. There is hardly any justification regarding an onslaught committed by a human to another of his kind. I, nonetheless, have got myself an imaginative idea. Out there, there might be a planet and another highly intelligent sane creature like human. They would also have their own languages, their own societies, their own rules and cultures, and their own (or maybe the same) gods/god/God. There's one slight diversity, though. When their first baby were born, their hormone would require them to murder their child for the sake of survival. (If, nonetheless, you think that you could not accept that imaginative idea, you can also take an actual case in this planet which would be similar--there are tons.) Second question: is taking a life always an act of wrongfulness?

Closure: absolutism is not absolute. Sub-conclusion: what is not wrong is what is suitable in a particular place and in a particular time.

photograph source

Finally, I would like to say that I always restrain myself not to over-value a principle or a rule (even if it is one of my own). I have found that it is always 'right' to say, "I think this is more suitable in this present time and place," instead of saying, "This is absolutely right."

What do you think? What is righteousness to you and what is wrongfulness?