27-3-2008

Right or Wrong

What is right and what is wrong and who decide what is right or wrong and can right transformed into wrong and a wrong transformed into a right.
This is a question what is asked since the beginning of time a fundamental one since Human kind started to walk the Earth but still if wrong is wrong and right is right do we really know that right is right and wrong is wrong could it not be that wrong is right and right is wrong. Can right be made wrong or wrong be made right or maybe we see it as right but turns out to be wrong or we see it wrong and it turns to be right. Maybe it is so that right is indeed right but can be seen wrong in which case we see wrong as wrong which could be right although the possibility can be that it is wrong. What is right in the opinion of the one is a wrong in the opinion of the other and what can be right one day can be wrong the next or is wrong can be right the next day.

Therefore, what is the marker what decide the wrong versa right and what makes an action right or wrong
In addition, what do we mean if we saying someone are doing wrong or right?
Do we mean it is right but we see it wrong or is it wrong and we presume that it is right while in reality it could be wrong? However if it is wrong in reality do we have to question the meaning of right or can we presume that what we see as wrong is indeed wrong. This opens up the question of seeing it right that it is wrong or do we presume it could be wrong while it could be right in which case what is wrong and what is right.

This is a problem over which human kind have spent many grey hairs. They have talked argued and written for so long human kind is walking the Earth. We do label murder, slavery, wars, torture and robberies as wrong. The question however arises is this correct to label them as wrong. There are examples in which others show to that they see this in a different perspective. They argue that the murder of a dictator can be wrong although it is right for the survivors of his regime. Slavery is wrong but is the result of the slavery not beneficial for the for the survivors and generation following.
Wars are wrong but it has not stopped countless army’s to start one always claiming that they had the right on there side, and if wrong history always grant the winner always the right. However, is this correct could it not have been that the start of that war was wrong. Maybe done for the wrong reasons which are seen right if successful but as wrong when lost. And if the looser is accused as the wrong doer does this means he was wrong or was he right but lost in which case the attacker was wrong to do so but because his win, right.
Torture we all say is wrong at all times however it does not stop people from torture others again under the claim that they have the right on their side take for example Iraq and quatamo bay. It is obvious that they are wrong but again seen as right because they won. Is it right or is it wrong but do we grant the right because they were the strongest and therefore have the right to torture although wrong accepted as right. Maybe we are wrong and the right should always be on the winning side although they acting wrong. Does this means we accept that it is right although experienced wrong while being told it is right. Torture would save lives as they claim and saving lives cannot be wrong so the wrong is right or is it.
Robbery is wrong or so we are told but if done by ones in power then it is seen as right. See for example the taxing system in some Countries.
If it benefit the ones in power then it is also right this is off course a duty-based clarification. They can declare a wrong right, while at other times they can declare the right wrong.
Objections to this are rejected they see right or wrong as right or wrong whatever the outcome.
This deserves a more clearly defined explanation but as wrong and right are not clearly defined such an explanation is not possible the position therefore that robbery is wrong is wrong.

Religious groups see it simple. Wrong is against the will of God and Right means simple that this is what the God wants. Without the religion, they are lost in the arguments of right and wrong.
They follow simple the lead their religion has pointed out for them their Duty is clear Wrong is
Against the Will of God and Right is Gods Will for them following commands is a form of morality and even the killing of a dictator are seen as wrong although it will have saved ten of thousands of people and a war is justified as a Right being the Will of God.

Others believe Wrong and Right is decided by Law and rules, but this means the law makers can
Use Wrongs to make it Right if it suits their purpose and show Rights in a way to make them look Wrong again to suit their purpose. We can stand our ground and point out that for a right to be wrong there has to be a reason which makes it right to see right as a wrong. In reality, we know what right and wrong is but both right and wrong are properties of the ones in power.
We can argue against it we can object and point out that what right is cannot be wrong, but although we are right, the power over rules and makes the rules of what is right or wrong.
It can mean an opposite opinion but although right, the power will always over rule what is a right and made wrong if it suits the power. We can wonder over the reasons we can object the conclusion of the powers decision but right or wrong is right in our eyes will always decided by the ones in power who decide what is right or wrong even if it is blatant obvious that wrong is right and right is wrong.
There are many rights and wrongs and we can wonder if so many right and wrongs do not block the view on what is really right or wrong. Some rights and wrong are well defined. For example, right can be in easiness although being right used as a wrong.

It is for example right to have respect for older people and for older disabled people so that they can live out their live in peace. This is also a moral duty therefore right. It can be used as a wrong by ones in power for example as costing too much if the ones in power has to feed the cost for the older and the older disabled. In that case, the ones in power see it as a wrong what is in reality right.
Such a reaction by the ones in power can lead to the dead of older and older disabled people, as they do not have enough funds to eat to heat themselves and to obtain care if they need it. It is seen as wrong by most but as right by the ones in power as it decreased the quantity of older and older disabled people needing funding. Look at a example such as the UK were older people have to come around with amounts of money just enough to keep them barely alive but to short to live from, hence the level of dead of older and older disabled people is higher then elsewhere in the industrialized world.
Besides that is it immoral to inflict such an action and is seen as wrong it is still promoted as right by the ones in power who although lowering still further the older and older disabled people in real terms still see every reason to increase drastically their own income seen as inadequate.
As a figure quoted, they obtain a weekly amount what is on level as what the older people receive yearly. Nevertheless, they say it is not enough they need more, but at the same time, they say that, the older and the older disabled having more then enough. Moral wrong as wrong against right but as they have the power they see it as right.

It does mean that they have lost the respect for the older and older disabled people seen them as an extra funding cost and therefore they (the older people) are wrong. The question here is that if the ones in power would act morally right they would threat the older and older disabled with respect, which would cost more funding but would be right. It would gain them more popularity but would cost funds therefore it must be wrong as for every day an older or an older disabled person lives it cost money, so the preferred option is to lower the basic income in real terms for the older or older disabled persons and trust they die soon and again funds are saved.

Doing the moral right action would mean the level of older people alive would grow and that they see as wrong so that the ones in power see the older and older disabled as wrong and therefore they should not receive adequate funding which would them make living longer as that would be wrong. On one side they portray the older people as citizen who deserve a peaceful live after a live time of work and they see that as right. However, that would cost funding and that they see as wrong so that they are morally wrong from every angle, but because they are in power, they see it as right.
So it will be wrong if it cost funding a morality of prejudice matter but unless there is a morality good reason to see it otherwise, it is also a form of cruelty.

For example, cruelty is Wrong, as it is a form of torture. Why is it seen as Right by people in power to use it to control others. Using it as a Right although wrong and therefore see cruelty as right if used by one group but wrong if used by another group. Here is interlinked Right and Wrong as the same item. We have already established that for ones in power torture is a right and as cruelty is part of torture, they presume that the cruelty is right although being wrong. For killing counts the same criteria, Killing is wrong unless the ones in power allow it, in which case it is right.

Cruelty and killing if they can be used as Right while being Wrong does that mean there is also an apology for rape, slavery, robbery and theft, and if cruelty and killing are used as Right is there a right to prevent those or any justification to stop them happening and is there any logical reasoning to let it happen or to prevent them.

Does this mean that the principle of Right and Wrong not exist. Is it subject to the initiative of the moment where it can be decided on that particular moment in time of the action is Right or Wrong while in principle the action taken was Right but the morality of the action is wrong. Man can wonder the morality of this right and wrong it is possible to say right is subject to wrong as wrong is subject to right and right and wrong can be used freely to either side of being right or wrong. However, in most Countries right is what the ones in power have decided what is right even if this is wrong. Wrong is all action taken and not supported by the ones in power even if it is Right.

Wrong can therefore be Right if it suits the ones in power and Right can be Wrong if it suits their purpose. It does mean that Right and Wrong can be switched to suit the wanted result and therewith disregards the principles of Right and Wrong.

The problem arise when an action has only two alternatives and both are not wanted, as Right can be turned into Wrong and still be Right and Wrong can be turned into Right and still be wrong.

The morality of the question of Right and Wrong is simple, doing Right is done out of a sense of Duty, doing wrong is done with the possibility for personal interest. From whatever side you will then look at right and wrong the personal interest will be the right one even if wrong while out of a sense of duty right is always right even if it is wrong, which turns duty into a personal interest and therefore could be wrong. This is an open argument.

One of the situations which arise and in which the power against right is clearly and to clear obvious is the relationship between proprietor and tenant whatever legal procedure they may have, the power is always in the proprietor’s position to be used whatever form he wished.

For example, a proprietor recognised by their Government as a Social property owner as it is called in most countries although some will have different names for the same institution. They will have the duty to look after his Tenants according to law. This does not always suit the funds creating purpose of such a landlord as which result they will make the life of a tenant so difficult as possible which is Wrong but accepted as right by the landlord, but experienced as Wrong by the Tenants. The property owner was wrong as they broke the Law but they were accepted as right as they were the property owner therefore Right and the tenant although Right was therefore Wrong after all they were only the tenant.

It will be put forward and argued against that such Landlord who has the recognitions of the Government will not engage in such an action as that would be wrong, but the property owner will argue that because they are the property owner they are Right although evidence points to wrong. In relation with believing in God, they would be evil over good and as proprietor evil.
There for it will be argued that such a Landlord does not exist.


This right of the property owner is based on the money and power position they have above the tenants, they feel therefore superior above them, and therefore all what is wrong in reality is right in the property owners mind. It does tell a tale about that mind and the failure to understand right and wrong, as they only understand money and power.

They are able to pull strings to make wrongs right although they know they are wrong. They feel they have the superiority to be right and there for they are right, although they morally wrong but the morality is simple switched off from right to wrong. Morality is for all conscious humans then it leans entirely on the sense of Duty in other words if you want to be respected then act to right and avoid wrong.
In the proprietor case, they want to be respected without having to be right and still can act wrong without loosing respect, which already have knowingly lost. They know that they are tolerated and therefore will still have the support of the supporting power and their agencies and hangers on such as MP’s
Therefore, see their actions as right although they know their actions are wrong and morally unacceptable, which place them at the same level as the supporters of cruelty and torture as the result of their actions is just that and they know it is wrong but the incoming funds tell them it is therefore right, but is it.

The conclusion has to be that Right although being Right can be made Wrong although it is Right to suit the purpose of power controlling humans and that in their eyes the words right and wrong are in principle the same depending on which side of the wrong or right they stand. Therefore in the above sample tenants are always wrong although being right and the landlord is always right although being wrong so that this example means that right is wrong and wrong is right depending who has the most power and money as power and money are morally wrong but seen as right.

The question therefore of right and wrong is not a question of morality but a question of who ask themselves what need to be right or wrong although wrong can be right and right can be wrong.

But what if Right can be Wrong and Wrong can be Right can be extended to another long for asked argument that of Good and Evil. This needs the existence of God. Right could be good and wrong could be evil. This extension if possible could put forwards the meaning that the wrongs committed by the landlord although seen by them as right can be seen as Evil from the tenant point of view but from the landlords point of view put forwards as Good although being evil, the Good as Right and the Evil as wrong.

The above can show us a complicated argument that if the extension mentioned before is right does that mean that the proprietor is evil as opposite to good. Can it be as by right and wrong where by right can be wrong and a wrong can be right, can evil then being good and good being evil. It could mean that the landlord although being evil is good, but if so does this means that evil is good and does it make all good evil and all evil good does that makes all who are good in principle evil or if evil but have power and money means evil is good?

Let us look at the proprietor view, which is opposite to that of the tenants.
Does the proprietor stand in reality of daily life or in the reality of his own vision opposite to the tenants view, does the proprietor realise tenants problems special the older and the older disabled. The previous makes it obvious the proprietor does not, as a proprietor who knows the different between right and wrong would not obstruct older and older disabled tenants for no other reason than to obstruct, this follows that the proprietor is against older and older disabled tenants. We search for the reason but this is right in front of us. Older and older disabled tenants need extra attributes to make their live independent and that cost funds.

As before, we have shown that the ones with power lean on funds to enhance that power having it to spend on older and older disabled tenant’s means less funds, that is wrong, and the proprietor cannot be in a position of being wrong. To obstruct harass bully and intimidate is the only option. This is not possible without having others around to check and to report to the proprietor. Most proprietor in this position in which they are wrong but have to look right have local staff who are doing the ground work for them. They are using the now so popular tenants associations also called residents association, which in most cases are a kind of social club who is rewarded by the proprietor if the info they collect is helpful for the proprietor. Those kind of social clubs are mainly a handful of tenants who want to be somebody but did not get anywhere, opposite as where an active association oppose pressure and try to work constructive with the proprietor. As such, they are a fruitful ground to receive and collect information in which find they glorifying in the property owner attention. They fail to recognise that they are used to make right wrong to please the property owner and are simple an extension of his tools to convert right in wrong and make wrong into right.

If we follow this extension further does it mean that what ever happens right is always wrong and wrong always right, evil always good and good always evil if there is enough power and money involved. Hypothetical it means that what ought to be done or not to be done is irrelevant if you want to achieve or avoid a certain objective regardless of this is right or wrong good or evil.

The mixture of good, evil, right, and wrong opens an argument, which is also going on since human kind set foot on Earth. Certain groups believes that God exist is omnipotent omniscient and all good. No proof of this existence is given other then He exists. If all that is accredited to God is true then why is there Right and Good , Evil or Wrongs. This can conclude that Evil or Wrong Right or Good in reality not exists other then defined by the presumed existence of God. By laws and rules written by Human kind over many thousands of years of human kind and slowly evolved from shaman’s level to the complicated Laws of our time.

During the evolvement of Human kind situations arise which needed to be brought in line by rules. And the first right and wrong was on his way to form for thousands of years many arguments. We have to remember that all rules and laws were man made. Many of those makers cried that they had received the instructions for the laws from a divine intervention or to say God. Enter the Good and Evil another topic of arguments going on for thousands of years.

Most Rules and laws are man made as a reaction at certain situations which would suit the ones in power at the time of the of the problems which needed the new law or rule regardless of it was called divine intervention it did not follow that those rules were good or right they were man made to suit the ones in power and history shows enough proof that many good laws were in facto evil laws nor right but absolutely wrong.
What follows is that theists are wrong as it is clearly shown that most good/evil right/wrong laws were made by man and that no proof exist that an Divine Being read God had anything to do with it although supporters will argue that the complexity and the efficiency of object in design are clear evidence of a Creator a God who designed all.

But if that is correct who designed God etc. here even the believers of God had to stand still and think because this was the chicken or the egg question so they came up with a invention which still is centre of many arguments. It made a dent into the Design argument, which brings us down to the starting question and the follow up Right versus Wrong and Good versus Evil. Ignores the Entropic and fist clause argument. This first clause argument was the result of the believers of God thinking when confronted with the question if God designed all who designed God. Therefore, the First Clause argument was created. It in lemans terms means God was the beginning of all and the question of who created God should not be asked as God was the first Clause.
The observation of nature made by Darwin shows a slowly adapting of any organism to his environment adapting to it and evolving from it and cast doubt over the First Clause argument.

The First Clause argument automatically assumes that causes could not go on forever in an infinite regress and assumes that there had to be a first hence the first clause. However, this is a lame argument because if there was a first cause then the argument fails to explain this first Cause or God as Supported by the Theists. It cannot be explained that if that God is all powerful, creative and all-knowing and all-good or as in the ontological argument the most perfect being imaginable. A perfect Being would not be perfect unless it exists, but if that God is all powerful all-good all knowing a perfect being. Can it be argued why it does allow so much humankind and natural evil.

Following the previous line of argument, we could say the Landlord act immoral but this will immediately encounters by the question of what is a moral action.

Here again is a longstanding argument between arguing groups but also by many people who acting out of a duty or a compassion. They feel that they acted out of morality based on duty or compassion. However, here we are in deep water. The proprietor feels it as his duty as to achieve his purpose, power and money, to act against older and older disabled people. There should be no compassion towards his tenants (refusal to deal with the complain) who after all are already old or old and disabled. They had their time and should be quit sit back and let come over them what the property owner find is his duty. Although being wrong it can be considered as evil but sees it as morally right as it will be benefit him and therefore sees it as his duty.

However, can we see this behaviour as moral? We do not think so. The so much used cliché by ones who have power regardless of this is on lower, middle or higher base, kick someone when they are down as you will always be on top. Is obvious by this property owner the first line of instruction.
This always followed by step on those who need help and we reward you for your effort. How further they are from the top how more virocius they enforce their instructions. They hope to get the attention of the higher up and be rewarded for their effort. However if they acted in good behaviour and would help those tenants what is their duty.
As rational humans beings they have certain duties which they should forfill with compassion and morality. Their hypothetical duty tells you what to do, and what not to do, if you want to be seen as a compassion human kind. However, they act the way the power has instructed regardless of this is wrong or evil. The reward is more power not doing so cost them power or a down grading from the power above, and forget the Golden rule never do to others what you don’t like to have done to you.

The question of argument is do they act wrong and evil out of their own desire or do they follow the power from above commands and if so do those two duties conflict.
The failure to respect other human’s interest makes them less critical for the next order. Their main objective is to please the power. Where by the power if in conflict will deny any pressure or instruction. They are back to their own desire and in conflict with the power from above. If they had acted morally and respected the other people’s interest it would have been, even if the justification of the powers absurd action had been in their interest. It would show them as acting moral and with compassion, which would have put the powers command of trail, although in the past dismissed as inadequate and irrelevant. They would have shown compassion and sympathy and a sense of duty. Feeling compassion for those would be considered as praiseworthy from the victim’s viewpoint although the property owner or power would strongly disagree.

Although we used the Proprietor/tenants example this power and money over Right and Wrong Good and Evil can be seen almost everywhere around the Globe.

The moral dilemma is here do we act right and good and show compassion for the older and the older disabled or do we obey our pay master wishes and see the wrong as right and the evil as good. The point here is what gives the human in that situation the most satisfaction and happiness as doing good can be seen as bringing happiness the right action in those situations can be calculated by examining the probable reaction on the action taken as what is likely to bring the most happiness for all and what is therefore the right action.

The moral dilemma depends if for example we follow the property owner instructions. This would cause a suffering effect for the older and older disabled tenants. Would we feel deeply distressed by knowing that our actions by following the property owner instructions made them suffer and unhappy and make us feel unhappy which has to be set off against the expected pleasures of having the Landlords approval which could mean more money or promotion.

The difficulty in this is the way to measure happiness and happiness of other humans. Whether or not, it had the right happiness effect on the one in power against the suffering of the victim. Would the morality of our character allows us to inflict those pain and suffering for the pleasure of maybe more money and promotion. Would we not have a greater happiness if we ignored the one in power’s instruction and showed compassion towards the older and older disabled. This action taken could have a severe re-action as the one in power for example could fire us or demote us. Do we have the moral courage to stand up against such wrong and evil instructions. We know if they fail to produce the effect the instruction will be denied by the one in power. We will be pointed out as the evil wrong doers.

Evil is seen as a curse in human kind and in nature but if we see accept evil then we also have to accept that there is a God. Good and Evil is always set off against the existence of a God, while right and wrong is to be set off against the law and rules made.
Some argue that Evil does not exist as there is no God and evil cannot be defined by rules and lawmakers. Therefore, we talk about Right and Wrong were as by Right can be seen as Good and Evil as Wrong. Historically we live by the rules and laws by Right and Wrong. However, has to be Evil and Good to be based on a God, look at the concentration camps in the Boer wars and the second WW.
It cannot be denied that they were wrong. However both were products of lawmakers and therefore seen as right. It was a simple question of who won to establish of it was right or wrong the Germans lost so the Camps were wrong but what if they had won would they still have been declared wrong, therefore is wrong just wrong or is it right defined by law and opinion to wrong.

Is right just right or a wrong turned in to a right.

A better definition would be to declare them places of the highest cruelty run by masters of cruelty.
In which case although they were places of cruelty they were also right as they were places created by law and as we have established the lawmakers the rules of right and wrong. However, this right was clearly wrong and therefore the lawmakers must have been wrong but if the lawmakers were wrong then does this means that all lawmakers could be wrong just look at Iraq and quantamo bay were also people are kept under wrong conditions.

What we have tried to establish here is that Right and Wrong can be Wrong and Right or Wrong can only be right, Right can only be Wrong, or Right and Wrong could be the same entity.

Divided by the situation at that particular moment in time, that could be changed any moment by the lawmakers of that moment.
Does this means there is no right or wrong other than is decided by lawmakers or the power at that moment. It seems like that there is that morality what most human kind have that born feeling of right and wrong and although the law maker can label something right the feeling will be still there that it is wrong and visa versa. Is it for that reason that many take to the there is a God believes as there they can divide right and wrong in good and evil as all what God instruct is Good and all what he does not instruct is Evil. The so-called easy way out of responsibilities to divide good, evil, right, and wrong.
Natural disasters are Wrong per definition but there is a argument that disasters could be Evil. Although natural disasters such as a typhoon’s and a Earthquake’s are experienced as a cruel disaster for the victims. They cannot be seen as evil unless the effect is worsened by human incompetence or lack of action to help. Such disasters can only be seen as disasters not as Evil. For evil there has to be an divine interference while natural disasters are only be made worst by human reactions not by divine intervention, nor are they caused by divine intervention but mainly by the constant activities of the Earth.

If on the other side of this argument, the disasters are products of natural Evil. They can only be seen as Evil is there is a believe in the existence of God. If that believe is there how can we seriously believe in such a Being. The existence of all-good, as a all-knowing Being it would be able to prevent those natural disasters occurring. Such a Being, which is also, attributed as all-knowing all-good all-powerful a perfect Being should also be attributed as all-Evil.

There is an argument made that the existence of Evil is not Good but because there is Evil poverty and disease it leads to great moral goodness. This is an obsolete point as without Evil poverty and disease there would be no use for an increase of moral goodness and would be a superior Being if exist use dead and destruction poverty and disease to increase morality.

We explained before that the argument is that Right and Wrong are made by rule and law’s where as by Right can be one day right the next day wrong, in principle we have a Free Will to decide Right and Wrong but only after we are told what is Right and what is Wrong. We can do things today what over centuries is seen as good but same thing now is seen as a wrong. In reality new measure were not made because it was an Wrong. However, because it created extra source of income for the makers of those laws. Therefore, the law is wrong but made right because it is a law. After all for example being on the Country side and cut some flowers as a momentum was always a pleasure and therefore right but it is now against the law and therefore Wrong. However, is this so, does not this means that actually the makers of the law acted with alternative motives and therefore is Wrong. They are seeing themselves as Right because they are the law makers. However, they are wrong and therefore as the rule was made to obtain money (fines) and not a increased morality. This leaves the question is it moral to declare something wrong while in principle it is right for the sake of obtaining money which is morally wrong but seen as right by the makers of the law curtailing the Free Will.

We have illustrated that right can be wrong and wrong can be right, that if there is an believe in a God Evil can be Good and Good can be Evil.
When they say therefore that God is all-good does that mean it can be seen and experienced as an all-evil. A God who allows such a evil in human actions natural disasters cannot be seen as all-good but also as all-evil. It makes a mockery of the Free Will defence as it presumes that Free Will is only possible if we have the possibility to do evil. Can it be correct can there be a connection between Free Will and Evil as one does not exist without the other. The connection only stands if it is believed that Free Will cannot be in existence with out the possibility of doing evil which then leans on the presumption that God exist and therewith we are back to the previous Right and Wrong Good and Evil.

Wrong exist due to rules, laws, and it obvious that if a violent person is killed by another for reasons of morality and without rules and laws to state otherwise such an act is not Wrong. With rules and laws concerning such an act the person would be declared Wrong but is it, the killing of that violent person could have saved others from cruelty and dead so was the killing Wrong?

It is claimed by argument that every decision or action made is down to an earlier made decision or action and that therefore in fact the decision or action is completely determined by the decisions or action that is made before and action before that. If we do not know for sure that this is the case then there is no Free Will although in principle as it is an essential part of being Human then such a Free Will is limited to restrictions by rules and laws.


The argument has to be but still open for reactions that Free Will does exist but within a boundary, although it can be argued that this is not a real Free Will.
Free Will can be an reaction to an action to the principle of Right and Wrong. Coming to the example of the earlier the action experienced as Evil by the tenants but argued as Good by the property owner. Causing cruelty pain and stress acted to this out of Free Will and sees any reaction against this violation of Rights and in reality Evil an action against his power and money. This enables the property owner to act Wrong. However, is seen by him as Right but is morally Wrong but again seen by the property owner as Right. This raises the question how the property owner can justify the existence of such a moral Wrong. A Wrong directed at the older and the older disabled tenants. If other then feeling superior because of the backing from power and money. By deluding the moral action taken and hiding behind rules and laws not relevant to the tenants and while relevant rules and laws are ignored while failing to produce any valid reason for his Wrongful actions. Confirming that his action although Wrong are always Right making his action less convincing. The conclusion has to be that the wrongful actions by the property owner are morally Wrong. Therefore Evil is a conclusion as a fact, which cannot be altered by the showing of power and money and ignoring rules and laws.

The rule, only behave to others as others behave to you, does not hold here. The property owner uses his power and money to create actions that are Wrong and Evil, as the property owner is in a position of power and money even if both are only borrowed they can take the moral high ground. By not reacting on letters or complains they does not have to explain themselves. They can remotely instruct others to do the Wrong and Evil work while they knows they break the law. They stand above this as the tenants are powerless to counter act. The property owner knows he is morally wrong and act evil towards the tenants. The society as a whole accept only power, money not right, and laws. Laws are for the tenants to obey and for power and money to ignore. The whole purpose is to attract money from Agencies by the production of brochures and figures, which bear no footage to the reality. This is not of their concern as they do not see the tenants as very human but as commodities. They fail to accept that tenants are human with feelings and desires of their own. The property owner uses easy attracted to power tenants who highest desire is to know a manager by name. Therefore is willing to act as a informer for the property owner in exchange for the right that he or see may speak with the manager in person. Therewith he or she gives the property owner an easy hold over the tenants as all what is going on is directly reported to him. That this is acting wrong and evil is not of their concern. That other tenants are suffering is not of their concern so long they can stay in the shadow of the property owner who in their eyes is the superior being. The all powerful and loaded with money, that they portraying them selves as sad and lowly individuals does not cross their minds.
Free Will therefore is a luxury for the powerful and the ones with money and any argument that humans have a Free Will is for the sake of argument in the full knowledge that such a label as Free Will does not exist.

We have we think argued that Right and Wrong are in fact the same were wrong is right and right is wrong. We have shown that that Wrong can simple bought with power and money to be Right. Accepted as right although it is blatant obvious that it is Wrong. God is slowly moved to the back of the argument Good and Evil have followed that suit. Wrong can be with the click of a coin be switched to Right ignoring the moral objective they have towards the humans with out power and money. It can therefore be argued that instead of morality there is a behaviour issue. Where as some see the behaviour pattern as a combination of body and mind there are well known exceptions. One group could totally infiltrate the minds by spoken thoughts and action following by the body making it a complete infiltration of body and mind.
The national socialists of the 1930ths are a prime example of body and mind infiltration.
The example does in fact the same. The media the ones in power and the victims are constantly battered with information of no value for either then for the supplier. It shows he is all good and does all he can do for victims to be. For media the ones in power and the victims who are not on the target line of the supplier all seems to be to good to be true and so it is not true. However, because the it uses harassment intimidation and bullying as tools them keep quit out of fear and the ones who do speak are haunted day in and out.
Sounds familiar well it is it is a behaviour morality or indoctrination, which is used by the property owner
The target is the mind by almost daily battering with constant stress, problems objective is to give the victim no change to concentrate, and even actions to bodily harm victims are not avoided.

Some may say that the mind is a separate part of the body and that what effects the mind does not effect the body. For the close observer the situation is different if the mind is in turmoil due to illness or damage of the brain the mind does not work completely. The thoughts what were the impulses for the mind are wiped out and the mind has to function in a lower gear. Because of that, the body also react different. It proves that body and mind are in close relation with each other and not as sometimes argued separated.

To return to the theme argument of right and wrong we have concentrated ourselves to point out that right and wrong are in principle the same thing but separated by rules and laws to make them opposite of each other whereby right can be switched to wrong and wrong can be switched to right depending on the makers of the rules and laws.
In principle, you either behave wrong or you behave right and many have argued that we simple should accept the right pathway of live, problem with this is that what you see as the right pathway can be seen by the lawmakers as the wrong path.
If for example, you walk through the countryside. There is a man laying on the roadside in need of help. Do you go towards the man and help him? Feeling helpful and charitable towards him and stay with him until help arrived. Would you feel good as you feel you have done a good deed.

However, if another person would see the man and went over to him emptying his pockets and left. Would the other person feel good just as you did. The probability justified he did, if the goods he found in the operates pockets would be rich enough.

However, if the man was attacked by robbers just at the time you arrived. You confronted the robbers but was robbed yourself instead. Would you still think you done a good deed. You had overcome your own fears. However, if we look at the other side of the coin. The fact that you confronted the robbers was that one of courage or more an action of the body then of the mind.

The examples of the landlord and the robbery show that what ever the intention of the argument of right and wrong and from what ever angle you view it duty based consequentiality virtue or naturalism. The basic is that we all should know our right from wrong and that living the right way would give us happiness and moral worth ness. However, this can be a form of self deception and a denial of our responsibilities we all have. We all have to make decision as humans. We make valued judgements via our own mind. The morality is relative so that we never should interfere with the customs on the simple fact that there is no neutrality from which we can indicate on how to behave towards others. We have seen this in the property owner example. There are certain societies who believe that the laws of the land are for others to obey but that they are excluded from doing so because they have power and money. Are we prepared to say that members of those societies form a separate society with different laws and different moralities immune to criticism of others?

Does all means that the arguing that Right and Wrong does not exist. That it just is a value to be moved when law makers see fit to do so. Turning Right into Wrong and wrong into Right again.
That the expression Good and Evil only comes into existence when there is a believe in God. This is a different argument. If there is not such a believe in God are we pretending then that we never for sure would know what is right. Therefore by installing a Higher Being we can use the Good and Evil expression so that we can ignore the right and wrong problem. If so can we see it as our responsibility to express ourselves within the meaning of Good and Evil and Right and Wrong.
Do we take the easy way following the trend setting arguments who show us the way from Socrates to Hegel. Are we exploring new ways and silencing the voices who say that philosophy is nearing its end? That would be the same as telling humans to stop thinking as thinking forms the base of our progress. We have tried with a simple example of the argument between Right and Wrong to show that most of the questions are never answered. We hope that we not have called up more questions and more arguments.

We have tried to keep it as simple as possible to bring the point of Right and Wrong so clear as possible forwards as within our intention. We want to show that right and wrong although clearly embedded in our mind can be confusingly be changed into wrong and right. Although what previously was right could still be wrong but on the other hand and that is were to believe was right or maybe wrong. Maybe it can be the next moment wrong or right although we know when it is right even when we are told it is wrong. The same can be occurring when something is obvious wrong only to be told it is right. GEWK.
************************************************