In order to properly give meaning to the ideas of moral right and wrong, any ethical system must give certain considerations to certain sorts of questions. Where does morality arises from? Some ethicists have postulated an innate moral sense which serves as the ground of ethical decision. Others deny any such innate principle and consider conscience a power of discrimination acquired by experience. In the one case conscience is the originator of moral behavior, in the other it is the result of moralizing. Another major consideration with ethical problems revolves around the question of absolute good as opposed to relative good and as such, philosophical thinkers have sought an absolute criterion of what is good.

Frequently moral codes have been based on religious absolutes and find their answers within such structures. Immanuel Kant, in his deontology, and John Stuart Mill, in his utilitarianism, attempt to establish an ethical criterion independent of theological considerations. We must also question of the degree to which morality is authoritative (i.e., imposed by a power outside the individual). If the criterion of morality is the welfare of the state, the state is supreme arbiter. If the authority is a religion, then that religion is the ethical teacher. Hedonism, which equates good with pleasure in its various forms, finds its ethical criterion either in the good of the individual or the good of the group. An egoistic hedonist views the good of the individual as the ultimate consideration while universalistic hedonism, such as utilitarianism, finds the ethical criterion in the greatest good for the greatest number. Once we have a system lied out that addresses the above considerations, we may begin to glen an understanding and meaning of moral right and wrong.

The utilitarian is a teleologist in approach: he will claim that the moral status of what we do is determined by the consequences of what we do. The utilitarian insists that the principle of equality should be applied to the interests of objects of moral concern. In other words, the interests of all objects of moral concern must be considered on an equal basis in all ethical deliberation. One's own interests, or the interests of people within one's own social group, should not be given a favored status over the interests of others. This is not to say that these interests are irrelevant to moral judgment. It would be as illegitimate to disregard one's own interests in moral judgment as it is to disregard the interests of others. The claim of the utilitarian is that the weight given to the personal or group interests of the moral agent in moral deliberation ought to be a function of the degree to which those interests are affected by the action under evaluation, not on the basis of who has those interests. Thus, if I am attempting to determine the moral status of my actions, and my interests will be affected by my actions to the same degree that the interests of each of nine other people are affected, then I ought to give my interests no greater weight in moral deliberation than the interests of any one of these other nine people.

How does utilitarian ethics account for the nature of moral right and wrong? The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Stuart Mill maintains that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. We are forced beyond self-interest and must attach equal importance to everyone being equal. Morality arises from rational though; weigh various options and choose the appropriate path according to either a rule or an act that is believed to bring about the greatest happiness (or at least the least harm for the most people.) The good being discussed here is clearly a relative one. Utilitarian ethics lends itself to extreme situationalism in that it recognizes the uniqueness of various circumstances and not only allows, but forces moral agents to take time to delve into considerations of consequences. The authority is fully outside of the individual and is determined by the utility of the action.

Although utilitarian ethics allows morality to arise from the individual through rational thought, it seems to leave much in regards to moral right and wrong in an undecided state. What is determined to be good is fully dependent upon everyone as a whole and the authority is based upon pure utility. It is an attempt to describe the nature of right and wrong, and lies out rather simple prescriptions to follow in our endeavorer, but I find it unsatisfying to leave so much unpredictability.

The deontology described by Kant takes us along a different path in determining the nature of moral right and wrong. We once again appeal to reason, or rationality, as the the source of morality, but now the emphasis is upon an universal principle of integrity. Kant argued that the moral status of an action is not determined by its consequences. We are not morally obligated to seek the best overall outcome by our actions, but rather to perform those actions that accord with our moral duty. The aim of Kantian thought is to make this meaningful, though vague, criterion for moral judgment more precise and explicit, so that it may be used in a clear way as the basis of moral judgment. His central issue in this endeavor was: How can we determine what actions are consistent with a moral respect for ourselves and others? Kant believed that our capacity for rational thought is sufficient to determine this. The idea behind this approach is that whenever a moral agent acts in an intentional manner, the action implicitly warrants or recommends (or "wills" in Kant's language) the same action for others, and if a moral agent acts in a manner that accords with moral duty (that is, whenever the action is morally permissible), then the action is one that the moral agent could rationally (that is, consistently) recommend (or will) for all other moral agents.

Kant believed that rational agents, when they perform an action intentionally, act according to rules, or maxims, that they adopt as guides for their behavior. When I intentionally brush my teeth, I am following the maxim "One should brush one's teeth," or if I were to kill someone for personal gain, I would be following the maxim "One should kill others whenever it is expedient to do so." Thus, the implicit warrant or recommendation that I offer to other rational agents whenever I, as a rational agent, act intentionally is in effect a recommendation that others adopt the very same maxim that I am adopting for my action. Since in Kant's view an intentional action is rational and thus morally permissible only if one could rationally recommend it to others it is the same as saying that my action is rational and morally permissible only if I could will that the maxim of my action become a universal law. This is Kant's basic moral principle for human action, which he called the Categorical Imperative:

I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that the maxim of my action become a universal law.

Kant offered another version of the categorical imperative which he believed was equivalent to the universal formulation, the so-called end-in-itself formulation or Practical Imperative:

So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of any other, in every case as an end, never as a means only.

The importance of this formulation is its value in defining in a precise way the distinction between a "person," where we use this term in a moral sense, and a "thing." A person for Kant is an object of moral concern, and the only type of object of moral concern he recognized.

We find then in Kant's deontology that morality itself arises from rationality, and that the principles of duty are to be followed absolutely. It is possible for two different individuals to come to two different conceptions of their duty, but whatever that duty is determined to be, it must categorically be followed. We again transcend self-interest, as personal desires are not seen as morally relevant, only our capacity to reason. The authority of this comes from vague, but crucially important, universalities derived from our place as persons with the capacity to reason. As persons we are moral agents, as moral agents we posses moral status, and so we have fundamental moral rights. To follow the practical imperative is simply to recognize this established moral status.

Hindu ethics may be summarized in the conception of dharma. This is not to say that dharma is a simple conception though. In Hinduism, dharma is the doctrine of the religious and moral rights and duties of each individual; it generally refers to religious duty, but may also mean social order, right conduct, or simply virtue. Sacred law is the codification of dharma, which is one of the four ethical goals in life. A classical meaning of dharma is righteousness or good ethical practice according to what is handed down from age to age by those that were previously virtuous. It connotes the general ideas of honesty, decency, respect, care for others, responsibility, and duty which are incumbent upon all persons regardless of their position in society.

Another legitimate worldly concern is artha, or material prosperity referring not only to money but to all material possessions. According to this second goal of life man has to earn wealth so that he can maintain his family and help those who depend upon him, but it has to be done within the limits of the moral law. Man should not acquire material possessions by immoral means; it is only a temporary tool to be used in the pursuit of what is really important. Along similar lines of acceptability as a means only is kama: the pursuit of love and pleasure. In Hinduism love is spiritualized. Physical pleasure is recognized as devotion to god and not only is pleasure a permissible human goal, but pleasure-seekers need not go unguided. Man can openly choose to make pleasure his goal, but he has to stay within the bounds of general social rules and within the boundary of morality.

The supreme goal of Hinduism is Moksha: a salvation or final liberation from Samsar, the cyclic rebirths or transmigration of soul. Moksha depends upon the law of Karma. The more a person performs good works, the more quickly he or she will achieve moksha. So in order to get moksha easier and earlier one needs to lead a sound ethical or moral life.

Now what does all of this say in our pursuit to understand the nature of moral right and wrong? Morality arises from the desire to adhere to dharma and collect positive karma. It is believed that what is right and what is wrong is innately known, but it is up to the moral agent to freely choose to follow it. Hindu ethics is relativist though, certain duties and virtues apply to various situations in seemingly inconstant ways. The claims of dharma are meant to be universal, but in practice they vary within the hierarchical structure of Indian society. It is sometimes found that class duties come in direct conflict with universal duties, and the appeal tends to not follow what is intended as universal. How can this not put into question the very nature of moral right and wrong? The criterion of moral authority comes from a standard of customs and karma serves to both explain and justify life throughout, both of which seem to be a rocky foothold for an ethical system. How to recognize which and whether leaders are moral is not addressed.

The integrative quality of Hindu ethics within the entirety of Indian culture may be seen as a strength, as could the non-dogmatic nature of the ethical doctrine. Likewise, the tolerance and adaptability of dharma is very attractive in when wanting for an ethical system, but I wonder if the above weakness do not obscure the core nature of moral right and wrong beyond the point of properly giving meaning to it. Moreover, none of this can be properly understood apart from underlying metaphysical substrate of Indian culture, which puts a serious hamper on its application as a universal standard.

Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha, taught that everything in life constantly changes (anicca) and that absolutely nothing is permanent, not even anything within the individual, for the individual is only a myth (anatta). The key issue is the problem of dukkha, which arises through dissatisfaction with the world and with our constant desires. Dissatisfaction occurs because people constantly crave (desire) for things and that such things, when gained, are unable to truly satisfy them. The problem of why suffering arises and how it can be overcome is explained by the Buddha in The Four Noble Truths:

1. We have an problem: All life is suffering (dukkha)

2. The cause of the problem: Suffering is caused by desire (tanha)

3. There is a solution: Suffering is overcome by removing selfish desires, cravings, and attachments to things in this world.

4. To achieve the solution: People must begin to follow the Middle Way (magga)

The fourth noble truths lead to The Noble Eightfold Path and a very systematic prescription of ethical life is lied out.

Buddhists do not believe any God/god will save them and sort out the world; they believe it is up to individuals to do this in a very D.I.Y. fashion. Much time is spent meditating as they believe by doing this they can understand themselves, their true nature, and as a result the world they live in. It is also through meditating that they begin to value the Buddhist way of life. For example, by understanding the reasons why dukkha arises (Right Understanding), and deciding to something about it (Right Intention) they will avoid doing things which cause or contribute to 'suffering' (Right Action). In other words:

Meditation (thinking) → Wisdom (realization) → Morality (action)

and through this realization and morality, karma is accumulated, which is a strong secondary goal, and possibly even nirvana may be achieved, the ultimate goal of a Buddhist.

We thus see that morality arises from the acceptance of universalities. While it is up to any particular moral agent to indeed act such to be in keeping with the Middle Way and the Eightfold Path, there is not appeal to reason in determining what should be done. Moral right and wrong are spelled out and are universal, equality is sweeping; not only over all people, but all sentient beings. The authority of this is understood to be the true, or natural, way of existence. No appeal to tradition is made, nor to religion, but that enlightenment will reveal this all to be the way it is.

While sweeping equality surely is desirable in an ethical system, some criticize this impartiality as naive. They have argued that surely it is only human to place some greater compassion for a family member then an enemy. When viewed through Buddhist's ideas, such as anatta, it seems completely justified though. Another criticism stems from anatta itself, as leading to self-effacement, or withdrawing into the background and being reluctant to draw attention to yourself. I do not see how this is a strong weakness of the ethical theory, for it seems to place one value statement against another. Regardless the meaning given to moral right and wrong is hardly effected by these arguments.

The harmony cultivated by following the Middle Way shines clearly upon what right and wrong mean. Promotion of good character, of being good as opposed to just doing what is right, also adds defining meaning to moral right and wrong. Metaphysics and ethics are intricately linked within Buddhist thought in such a way that the nature of reality, the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value, and what is good for the individual and society, the nature of obligations and duties, what people owe themselves and one another compliment each other in accord.

We have now seen four very different systems intended to expose the nature of moral right and wrong and give meaning to morality. With utilitarianism and deontology, we arrive at moral conclusions though rational thought; conscience is the result of moralizing. What conclusions may be arrived at may differ between the two though, for utilitarians place moral authority in the utility of an action while deontologist find it in the vague conception of duty. Utilitarians are relativists while deontologists put faith in the absoluteness of moral duty. Hindu and Buddhist ethics agree in regards to an innate moral sense serving as the ground of ethical decision, that is with conscience as the originator of moral behavior. The do not find common ground regarding the question of absolute good as opposed to relative good. Hinduism has relativism built into its caste hierarchy, class duties, and differing virtues ascribed based on where the moral agent is found therein. Buddhists maintain an unequivocal equality of all living things, and hence the universality of moral right and wrong. Furthermore, Hinduism places authoritative power in the status quo while Buddhists place it in the essence of greater truths.

To address how well these particular theories account for the nature of moral right and wrong, I feel all are worthy systems, none without merit to be contemplated. To choose one over the others seems pretentious in spirit, but nonetheless I am most satisfied with the teachings of the Buddha. I acknowledge perhaps I have chosen the most difficult path to follow, especially given my native Western culture, but I find the ideas lied out do most fully account for the nature of right and wrong within the structure erected. I do not put forward a contention of the accuracy or inaccuracy of any of the above theories, but simply cite which I think best represents the charge that has been set upon me.