My basic yardstick is anything that does not hurt someone is not really wrong.
So I support Gay Rights because what two uncommitted, consenting adults do in their bedrooms is nobody’s business. I also feel personal lives of adults should be their business. So what careers people choose, what kind of recreation they like, what they eat and drink, how they like to dress, what time they sleep or wake up, which God they worship, the music they prefer or what kind of books they read is none of our business. So, any attempt to control these choices would be Wrong.
I would be concerned about alcohol or drug abuse, specially in public spaces, because substance abuse has been known to lead to violence and crime.
And violence is seriously Wrong, unless it is in self defense.
By the same logic driving without helmets is dangerous for self, but not Wrong. But driving without license is seriously Wrong.
What about Hurt Sentiments? Hurt sentiments leave too much scope for exploitation so one needs to tread with caution, since nobody can really see ‘hurt sentiments’, there is a risk of false claims.
I would also be very vary of letting anybody decide what others should see as Wrong. I see that as very Wrong. Why?
Because there is a great risk of misuse of such almost unlimited powers. The power to decide what is Wrong for everybody has been known to have unfortunate consequences, basically because the ones empowered to decide had their own, very human prejudices.
And then they also had self-interest in mind.
History has shown that powers like this have been misused and have lead to terrible consequences. Widow-burning, devdasi-system, the caste system, patriarchy, polygamy and child marriages are some examples of what Undemocratic Power can lead to.
Do you think some people should have the right to decide what everybody else should see as Wrong? If yes, then how should these people be chosen to ensure they have no personal biases etc.?
How do you distinguish Right from Wrong?