What is right and wrong

In the video I shared from the channel Unsolicited Advice, the host discussed the views of the philosopher Nietzsche, who believed that morality defines what is right and wrong—what is good and what is evil.

It was one of the few well-articulated philosophies I’ve come across on the subject in YouTube. While I agree with Nietzsche to some extent, I don’t believe morality is the only factor that defines what is good or bad/right or wrong.

Morality is just one layer in the broader question of right and wrong, but it plays a significant role in how we define “good” and “bad.” 

It alone doesnt explain why people engage in activities which they themselves considers wrong. It can only be explained if there was an opposing force which told them it is the right thing to do.

And so it can only be explained with a  multi-layered approach. Where One layer says it is wrong, but an another layer says it is right for him to do. 

Let’s take the example of rape to examine that behavior more closely.

In the modern world, it’s almost universally condemned as a grave moral wrong. But just a few centuries ago, during times of war, women were often seen as part of the spoils—considered a soldier’s "right" upon victory. Go even further back, and a husband’s right to force himself on his wife wasn’t questioned; it was simply accepted.

This shift in perception over time is one reason many philosophers argue that right and wrong are relative rather than absolute.

But I don't believe that the concept of "right" and "wrong" is relative or an absolute. I believe whether its absolute or relative depends on his goals, on his intent and on his perception.

I propose a "three-layer model of right and wrong"—a framework that individuals subconsciously use to determine an action when faced with the question of right or wrong..

At the heart of this system lies intent and consequences. A stone that sits, a cloud that drifts, a river that flows—none can do right or wrong, because they act without intention, without wanting a particular consequence. Even if a boulder falls and kills, It is not wrong, it simply followed the laws of physics without any intent, devoid of any will.

And so no action or inaction can be right or wrong, if there was no intent and a need to achieve a goal behind it.

In contrast, every action or inaction by a living being carries some form of intent - sometimes hidden, sometimes visible. A person sitting simply when an another is in distress has intent and an evaluation of consequence behind that decision. The intent can be something immaterial like he likes seeing other people suffer or he doesnt want to excerpt energy to this cause.

In India, Once there was a law that said that if a civilian brought a person to a hospital, the person would be his responsibility. The effect of such a law was people ignoring others who had met with accidents. They would die on the road. This law had such an effect of punishing a good behavior that the behavior lingers even after the law was changed.

And so in this particular case, it is observed that fearing the consequence of helping an another human being lead to inaction. How will you classify whether the induvial did is right or wrong? How did the individual themselves conclude that not helping is the right thing to do?

This brings us to the first layer of the model - the layer concerned with the benefit or harm to self. This layer judges actions based on whether an action would benefit or harm self. A person is right if he performs an action which will help him survive, reproduce and attain well being for self.

In contrast, it is wrong if he performs any action which will threaten his survival, reproduction or wellbeing.

In nature, for example, a dominant animal might force itself to mate. From a purely biological standpoint, this behavior can increase its chances of reproducing. And therefore would be "right" as it allows to pass on its genes.

But for the female, that same act could pose a threat. It may endanger her safety, reduce her ability to choose a suitable mate, and compromise the fitness of her offspring. And therefore would be “wrong,” as it undermines her own survival, wellbeing and reproductive success.

The intent to build a stable society gave birth to social duty. And that is the Layer 2 : Society's benefit.

The focus shifted from the personal intent and consequence to social intent and consequences. What is right and wrong is defined by what lets the society survive and prosper.

Society based ethics defines the duty, an individuals have toward society.  What’s considered “right” or “wrong” depends on his action to this duty. If he takes an action or an inaction that fulfills this duty is right and whatever action which is against this duty is wrong.

For example, it is seen as right for a soldier to give his life defending his country, not because of any personal gain (L1), but because it contributes to the society's survival (L2). 

Similarly, it is wrong for a police officer to accept a bribe and let a criminal go free—not because it harms the officer directly (L1), but because it harms the society (L2).

These duties are not only is tied to the job, but also the social relationship : duty of a father, duty of a mother, duty of a son, duty of a daughter, duty of a friend, duty of a neighbor etc. 

Society assigns what is right and wrong for you based on the duty you have to the society. This set of ethics is created and enforced by the society alone. These rights and wrongs are often considered absolutes and doesnt change most of the time.

Naturally, society has an interest to over-power a person's self-interest, so that the good for the many (L2) can be prioritized over good of the one(L1). But when the layers are misaligned, people may choose actions that serve themselves but harm the collective as self-benefit (L1) would be the natural inclination.

To have the person choose L2 over L1 even in cases of misalignment, a third layer emerged: Wisdom of the masses.

Through religion, knowledge, culture, tradition—and sometimes even misinformation—certain traits and behaviors become valued by society at large. This is the morality Nietzsche explored: not objective truth, but the collective judgment of what is deemed “good” or “bad.”

With the inclusion of this third layer, the decision-making process shifts. It’s no longer about weighing social duty and personal benefit equally. Instead, society is considered twice, and the self only once. Allowing the good for the many to be chosen incases of misalignment.

And values like truth, courage, humility, kindness etc. is valued, even if it hurts self but as long as it doesnt hurt the masses.

For example, The resent Hamas attack on Israel, where terrorists even killed innocent babies was considered good by many Gazans. The caste system which  labels one group of individuals to be better than an another set of Individuals. Religion where one religion is better than an another.

As long as the masses believe the trait is right, it will be right. If the mass perception is changed, the same action becomes wrong. This is purely relative, different from L1 and L2 layer where we could find some absolutes.

A person's intent in this layer is often to be respected by society. 

Every action we take—whether consciously or not—is weighed against these three layers. Which layer holds the most weight varies from person to person.

Someone who seeks approval will lean heavily on the third layer, guided by what others value. Someone who finds meaning in duty or purpose will prioritize the second. And someone who doesn’t care what others think may rely mostly on the first, acting in their own interest.

It’s a person’s personality—and perhaps their circumstances—that determines which layer dominates when the layers don’t align.

Introducing these additional layers explain why people sometimes do things they themselves believe are wrong. It’s the result of misaligned layers—an internal conflict within the three layer system.

The first layer, rooted in personal well-being, may encourage an action because it benefits the individual. But the second layer, which is shaped by duty and social responsibility, might condemn that very same action as wrong. And the Third layer may encourage an action even if its wrong on both first and the second layer.

And so, an act can be both right and wrong at the same time. Whether a person chooses one over the other depends entirely on how much they value personal gain versus their duty to society versus what the opinion of the mass is.