I believe that some things are absolute; things that are clearly defined right or wrong. Things that are black and white. Things like the law, knowledge and facts and etc are one of these absolute things.
However, I believe that there is a grey area between the absolute right and wrong. With this area, there are many chances that things may go wrong with errors occurring. This is because everything that lies between, is subjective and debatable. Things like values, beliefs and etc lie in the gray area.
There are pros and cons to each i.e. being absolute and being in the grey area.
For the absolute...
- If we think about it, if everything in the grey area was made absolute, there would be peace in the world. Because everyone would be united in a set of values, and there will be no qualms to whatever issue because things are clearly cut out by the "higher" authority - the absolutes. E.g. countries wouldn't be strangling each others' necks, arguments would only last for less than a minute, bias and prejudice from personal opinions wouldn't exist, and people won't be harmed by subjectiveness.
- However, this being said, this leaves no room for individuality - the human factor. The personal opinions and feelings of the individual is disregarded and he must abide in the absolute system, choosing either to be right, or wrong. In a sense, they're "forced" to do right because most people want to do the right thing. Either do that, or be regarded as a wrong-doer, whose emotions and beliefs are left unheard.
For the grey area...
- It prevents us from living under a plain and uniform society. Sure, it's awesome if society is united, but it doesn't feel "right" if we all had to conform one thing. Individuality roams free in this area. We can speak our opinions, voice our emotions, fight for what we belief is "right".
- Unfortunately, this leaves room for error. Everyone will have their differences and conflict will definitely ensue. It is then hard to resolve things because there is no higher authority to settle things cleanly and clearly. Since nothing is set in black or white, everyone will fight for what they believe is right. Everyone is out there for himself, and it's likely that their mindset is self-centred. The error in this area is existence of selfishness in humans - "How I think and what I think is right. I can do what I want and however I want to. It's about me and about how I want to be heard."
So is right to be absolute?
Doesn't it give us the assurance having no error in society? Won't it benefit us since it eliminates the imperfection in the human factor in the world? Wouldn't it prevent prejudice that is presented by the perspectives of emotional humans? Wouldn't the world be a fair place?
Or is it too strict and emotionally detached, leaving no room for individuality? What about emotions? Aren't we made to feel and express emotions freely instead of restricting it? Is it wrong to think about ourselves?
I believe that being absolute would be the way to go for unity and peace all around, but having said that it really depends why, who and how the absolutes are defined. Because everyone is different, there will be a group of people who will not fit into either the category of right and wrong. The personal input is ignored and they're forced to put aside their feelings and individuality. If God defined the absolutes in every single detail in the world today, there would be no qualms at all, because He is the higher authority and perfect in judgement. But since it's humans we're dealing with, our definition of things in the world can be flawed.
So where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? Would it be better to adopt an absolute belief in somethings whilst allowing a certain margin for individuality? If so, how much? What will the margin of error be? Ultimately, because we are human and what we do cannot appease everyone, we're stuck with this eternal problem, a conflict between the two beliefs. We can only do our best to minimise the damage by finding the "balance" between the two.
