Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: Churchwardens | Main page | Next entry: Scottish Power »

June 23rd, 2006

Right and wrong

cartoon from www.weblogcartoons.com

I have folded this cartoon up, put it in an envelope, stuck a stamp on it and posted it to We Blog Cartoons. You are welcome to freely re-use the cartoon on your own blog, but please donate the used stamp to a used stamp charity.

These are my thoughts on this partially cloudy Essex morning:

I have been thinking about ‘right and wrong’. Is it the responsibility of the individual to decide what is right or wrong? Or does the community of faith (the ‘church’, some might call it) have a role in telling us what is right and wrong too?

I feel that, on one hand, unless one has walked in another person’s shoes, experienced what they have experienced then we, as onlookers have no right to judge their actions. If another person has honestly thought their actions through and used and used the best means at their disposal to decide what is right and what is wrong (For example their conscience, the Bible as they understand it, their own life experience, etc) who are we to tell them they are mistaken?

But then again this view breaks down when it comes to actions that we all acknowledge are wrong. We all, for instance, would agree that it is wrong to steal pencils. I cannot imagine that any unrepentant pencil-stealers frequent this blog. But what if a friend believes strongly that if they see a pencil it is their right to take that pencil home and add it to their pencil case? Surely we would be right to make them see the error of their ways. Otherwise no pencils would be safe and scociety would descend into chaos. ‘Lock up your pencils’ would become our watchword.

The problem is, I suppose, that we need to decide which ‘wrongs’ are undisputed wrongs and which are debatable wrongs. The problem is often that there are disputes about which ones are undisputed. I suspect the disagreements in the Anglican world stem in part from such a difference of opinion.

If you have no idea what I have been on about please continue merrily on your way and come back tomorrow when I shall refrain from such in-depth talk. Otherwise do feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

18 Comments »



Share this on Facebook:

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

If you liked this post why not send it to someone else by e-mail? Click here to do so.

This is a single post on the Cartoon Blog by Dave posted on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 am. Click here to read all of the latest posts. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Other things technologically advanced people may like to do: trackback from another site, follow responses via the comments feed, bookmark on del.icio.us or digg.

18 Responses to “Right and wrong”


  1. Larry Day says:

    Lets start with something controversial. Genocide is always wrong but individual murder is not always wrong (e.g plot to murder Hitler).

    Its a cloudy mrning here in Southampton too

    June 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 am
  2. Suzy says:

    I think you are exactly right. Not that I’m any help with the deciding which ‘wrongs’ are undisputed wrongs and which are debatable wrongs. But I agree with the principle that in some cases it is not our place to judge, and in other cases surely a quiet word pointing out the error of their ways would be a good idea. I wish I could leave humourous comments … and I wish I knew how to spell humourous … that just looks wrong!

    June 23rd, 2006 at 11:15 am
  3. Mei says:

    Hi! I think that the ten commandments will provide some guidelines and for the grey areas, prayer (which is a trying process that requires prayer and commitment to the Lord).

    And I love this blog, the cartoons (am trying to get on with my cartoon drawing as well) and blogrolling yours!

    June 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 am
  4. Chris Clark says:

    Linking your last couple of blogs. I think you need to come to terms we Adiaphora which those clever Bishops mention in the Windsor report.

    Basically clergy standing on their heads on a Tuesday doesn’t matter but how a Bishop behaves – as a bishop is a focus of unity does matter.

    So it is with our behaviour. It can’t just be up to the individual (e.g. Jimmy Jones taking his flock off to South ASmerica to kill themselves) We need to listen to God’s word with reason in the light of good proven tradition…now I’m sounding like an Anglican!

    Keep up the great work Dave, you brighten up my life.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
  5. Tiffer says:

    I think that you are right when you say we are not to tell people who think they are right that they are wrong, but only in that telling someone they are wrong is mostly unhelpful.

    I welcome debate on all issues of right and wrong, including genocide and pencil stealing. I in fact know of unrepentant pencil stealers (i am a repentant one don’t you worry) and they would welcome anyone to prove them otherwise.

    Smoking is a good example. If I were to light up outside my offices now, not only would I get plenty of grimaces from Christian colleagues, but I would probably get called in by someone as well. If I were to tell them I had thought it through etc etc, then they couldn’t really say anything, but I would be annoyed if they didn’t try and challenge my conviction as if my life depended on it.

    I think the more respectful, selfless debate on difficult issues there is the more oppurtunity people have to seek out God’s way of looking at it.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
  6. Liz says:

    Pencil-stealers who remove pencils from beside the telephone are the very worst of creatures.

    I used to have lodgers and it was clear that there was just such a pencil-stealer in my household.

    After I stopped having lodgers, I realised it was me.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
  7. Cathryn says:

    People who chew the ends of pencils are just as bad.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
  8. MadPriest says:

    Hi Dave
    This answer gives rise to further questions but, at least, I find it to be agood starting point when thinking over ethical and moral questions.
    Something is wrong if it hurts somebody or there is a very good chance it might hurt somebody.
    If you sleep around there’s a very good chance somebody is going to end up getting hurt physically or emotionally. If you promise to remain faithful to one partner, there’s a chance it will all end up in tears but, from a utilitarian point of view, the possibility of hurt in a stable relationship is less than if you follow a promiscuous lifestyle. Hence my desire for the Church to offer exactly the same moral opportunities to gays as they do to straights, namely marriage.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
  9. Nefertiki says:

    First all, over here we would probably say “walk a mile in his/her moccasins” rather than shoes. Then I’d admit that for the most part I see a difference in judging those matters which would normally not be handled in a court of law by a real judge. So in matters not touching illegality my guide would be “judge not that you be not judged” or something referring to a “higher court.” But I fear that I do judge, mostly in private. In cases of breaking the laws of the land I am pretty strict about obeying the law. I am not opposed to the death penalty in a few cases, mainly for economic reasons.

    But differences in opinion as to religious, criminal, or civil law must be discussed in the appropriate venue — “change it don’t break it.” And definitely not broken in secret because they are “dumb or out-dated and will be changed some day” in the Vatican or Parliament or Congress or whatever authority you recognize, as some people have admitted they do.

    Gosh, Dave, as an undisputed life-brightener you do keep challenging people to illuminate dimly lit areas for themselves. Turning us all into theologians in a way. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. It’s been said that relativism is the curse of our age and someone has to try to figure stuff out. (unless you belong to a sect or religion that has all the answers and you are willing to obey implicitly.) So, with a little help from a Friend and Guide, why not you, and she, and I …

    June 23rd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
  10. Nefertiki says:

    MadPriest, I am probably misinterpreting something you wrote and please let me know if I have. “Something is wrong if it hurts somebody or there is a very good chance it might hurt somebody” bothered me a bit. People are often deterred from reporting a crime because they don’t want to hurt the perpetrator. But how is it wrong if they do? Even though they might love that person and suffer by reporting them?

    Then again, people have a right to live the life they feel they were born to live, even if that hurts a parent, spouse, or adult child. Should a son or daughter join the military because it’s a family tradition and their family will be miserable if they don’t, when their passion is creating art? That’s the sort of thing I mean, not deserting a family to be a beachcomber in the South Seas, etc. (Does it count if that person paints better than Gauguin?) I do enjoy your comments and your wit. Dave has given us a tough nut to crack, but I think you have to crack a few nuts to make nut bread.

    June 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
  11. Daniel says:

    I find myself in sympathy with a Quaker position on this and many other issues. I no longer believe in ordination. Having many splendid vicars (many of my best friends are ordained) I don’t understand any more. If I drew pictures to explain how I felt I too would be confused. I have taken refuge in the emerging church where Jesus positively hands out pencils to the undeserving. “Come to me all who all who are heavy leaden”. Mercy for many, justice for few.

    June 24th, 2006 at 1:17 am
  12. MadPriest says:

    Nefertiki
    Life is complex. Most of the decisions we make in life could lead to somebody being hurt. We usually have to choose the lesser of two evils. As we live in a world that is not fully the kingdom of God it is very difficult not to sin. My definition does not offer an escape from this it merely gives us a more rational framework to base our decisions on than “you can’t do that because it says you can’t in some old book;” (but I’m not saying that that old book can’t give us clues as to how to make our moral decisions).

    June 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
  13. Cathryn says:

    I once discussed right and wrong with a youth group. I asked them to think of a variety of wrong deeds which I would then ask them to put in order of “wrongness”. They came up with murder, racism, torture, fraud and two-timing your girlfriend, whilst I was thinking along the lines of drinking milk straight out of the bottle and playing loud music. We can choose to avoid murder and torture etc. as the obvious wrong deeds, but is drinking milk straight from the bottle wrong? I am undecided.

    June 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
  14. Nefertiki says:

    Cathryn: You have given some good examples of behavior, all of which is “wrong” or anti-social, but only some of it is definitively criminal. Some of it is in a gray zone and society is still having trouble deciding how to deal with it, such as racism. In those cases we’d have to learn the context of the act etc. While drinking milk straight out of the bottle may cause people to treat one like a criminal, only playing loud music after 11 PM (in most parts of the U.S.) gives you the right to call the police, and rest assured they will arrive promptly to deal with the evil-doers.

    Some behavior must be regulated by the conscience and good manners of individuals. While It would be nice to be able to call the police for every irritating act of others, but we can’t criminalize everything that is annoying. Some people, mostly the young I think, like to respond defiantly to requests to stop their annoying behavior in public with “it’s a free country and I can do what I want!” But democracy entails self-restraint.

    June 24th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
  15. angeli cara says:

    my basis for determining right and wrong are:
    1. values in which i was raised (many of them chucked)
    2. bible
    3. church
    4. me and God

    consensus becomes a numbers game in the summation of all the above. although in the endgame no. 4 takes precedence over all, influenced by previous three.

    June 25th, 2006 at 2:46 am
  16. Judah says:

    A Bible-based response is that Christians do have a right to point out Biblical truth and to judge (or alert to God’s judgement of) those within the Church who call themselves Christian, but as Christians we have no business judging and condemning people outside (1 Corinthians 5:12) which is something reserved for God alone.
    Therefore we ought to tolerate those outside the Church, although we shouldn’t stop trying to light up the truth to such people.
    Our main concern should be with Christ’s two commandments to love God and others over that of moral perfection, and criticising (or condemning) anyone and everyone who does wrong shows a lack of one’s fulfilling these commandments.
    If we as Christians criticise and condemn, then Scripture seems quite clear we can expect the same from God.

    June 28th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
  17. Jean says:

    Jesus showed that following Biblical “law” was not always “right” in God’s eyes, e.g. so-called honoring of sabbath. Bible-based christians, as Judah refers to, seem to forget that Jesus actually established LOVE as moral perfection. And love means seeing the beauty of others, not their sins, just as God does for me! Somebody has to “pay the price” for this reconciliation of judgment and love and it is the one who loves! That is why Jesus tells us to take up our cross and to lay down our lives! I think christians who think they “have a right to point out Biblical truth and to judge (or alert to God’s judgment of)” are confused in thinking their “code” is God’s truth just as the Pharisees were confused about their code of conduct being God’s eternal truth. Loving, always focusing on right relationship with others and God, is the supreme moral truth. Madpriest, gay people can be just as good at loving as are straight people. God is glorified by committed, loving gay people just as He is glorified by loving, committed relationships of straight people . Love is the moral pinnacle.

    July 9th, 2006 at 4:11 am
  18. Jean says:

    My post of 9 July was a real conversation-stopper, yes????

    August 10th, 2006 at 7:12 pm