Each of us has at least once asked ourselves how to distinguish genuine righteousness from a mistaken conception of it.

Bridging Subjectivity and Tradition: An Objective Approach to Righteou

Each of us has at least once asked ourselves how to distinguish genuine righteousness from a mistaken conception of it. At first glance, the ideas of being right or wrong seem purely subjective—like a feeling experienced uniquely by each individual, much like love. This personal, unparalleled experience gives us the confidence that we are acting correctly, even if the actual existence of “rightness” remains inexpressible on an objective level.

However, reality is far more multifaceted. The second aspect of this issue involves societal moral norms and timeless principles that have been proven over history. The established categories of good and evil reflect the collective experience of civilization and serve as a guide when evaluating everyday actions. Modern research shows that despite cultural differences in specifics, basic ethical values such as compassion and care for others remain unchanged. This suggests that an objective understanding of righteousness requires not only personal intuition but also a deep analysis of social standards.

Ultimately, truly distinguishing between right and wrong requires a systematic approach that combines personal sensory experience with convictions based on centuries-old moral traditions. Such an analysis helps us not only determine what is good in a specific situation but also see the broader picture, wherein every decision affects both personal development and the common good. It is through this balanced and comprehensive approach that we can choose a course of action that leaves us confident in the correctness of our actions.

How can one objectively distinguish the concepts of right and wrong in various life situations?

An objective differentiation between right and wrong can be attempted through an analysis of two levels: empirical experience and socially established moral norms. On one hand, as M. Laski notes, feelings of being right or wrong are perceived through personal experience, similar to how we experience love—that is, these are subjective feelings which, although they give a person a clear sense, do not necessarily indicate the existence of objective entities. He writes:
"M. Laski: Haven't you substituted some words? I say that I am familiar with a feeling which can rightly be called love, just as I am familiar with the feeling of being right or wrong, yet personally I do not consider it useful—perhaps I am merely playing with words—to say that love exists, that truth exists, and that falsehood exists. Let’s put it this way: I know what it means to experience love. I know what it is to be treated with love. Mitr. Antony: Understood. This is, so to speak, an irrational feeling—a pure feeling that you accept as experience without asserting that love, as such, underlies it." (source: link txt, page: 1050)

On the other hand, there is a socially conditioned level at which the concepts of good and evil are fixed by normative and historically proven principles. This approach implies that morality is defined by the set of norms and principles accepted by society and that have maintained their validity over the ages. As cited in the second source, morality is often understood through the lens of what is generally labeled as good and evil in society, where there is uniformity in the major moral universals despite variations in ethical details:
"This example demonstrates that the term 'morality' has come to signify a set of unclassified morals—those acceptable (proper, good) and those unacceptable (improper, evil) for society—or the collective principles and norms of behavior of people within society... Moreover, the history of cultural communities shows that there is a fundamental uniformity in the main moral universals, while cultural diversity is defined by differences in ethical details. Modern research indicates that 'individuals and cultures do not differ very deeply regarding what they consider ultimate ethical values.' Enduring ethical values include compassion, care, empathy, and lifesaving." (source: link txt, page: 6)

Thus, an objective differentiation of right and wrong in specific life situations requires combining an empirical analysis of personal experiences with reference to the enduring moral norms embraced by society. The final source further complements this picture by emphasizing a practical aspect of evaluation:
"It turns out that the holiest of endeavors can be considered a sin—indeed, a terrible sin—and later the person will be held accountable for it... Only by evaluating the entire complex of the problem, praying to God that the Lord may enlighten us, can we choose the correct decision, and then act accordingly without a trace of doubt." (source: link txt, page: 1601)

Although this discussion is based on assessing the benefits or harms to the soul, the main idea is that an objective differentiation is possible if each situation is considered in its totality of factors and consequences. This implies a systematic, balanced analysis of actions in terms of their contributions to the common good and personal development, where every detail is integrated with generally accepted moral standards.

Thus, the objective differentiation between the concepts of right and wrong cannot be reduced merely to subjective feelings; it requires an appeal to enduring moral universals, historically established norms, and a detailed analysis of specific life circumstances.

Supporting citation(s):
"M. Laski: Haven't you substituted some words? I say that I am familiar with a feeling which can rightly be called love, just as I am familiar with the feeling of being right or wrong... Mitr. Antony: Understood. This is, so to speak, an irrational feeling—a pure feeling that you accept as experience..." (source: link txt, page: 1050)

"This example demonstrates that the term 'morality' has come to signify a set of unclassified morals—those acceptable (proper, good) and those unacceptable (improper, evil) for society... Moreover, modern research indicates that 'individuals and cultures do not differ very deeply regarding what they consider ultimate ethical values'..." (source: link txt, page: 6)

"It turns out that the holiest of endeavors can be considered a sin—indeed, a terrible sin—and later the person will be held accountable for it... Only by evaluating the entire complex of the problem, praying to God that the Lord may enlighten us, can we choose the correct decision..." (source: link txt, page: 1601)