Until I was 16 years old, I was thinking about what was right and what was wrong. I found that not everything is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. There is a "shadow", which is neither right nor good. But then another question arises. How do we decide whether an action is right or wrong? Therefore, I decided to write an article about right and wrong.

Preface
Throughout the long history of humanity, the concepts of right and wrong have been central to morality, law, and social norms. In our daily lives, we often encounter such questions: What is right? What is wrong? People commonly believe that certain things are objectively right, while others are obviously wrong. This perspective seems unavoidable, especially when discussing societal morality, law, and ethical issues. However, when we delve deeper into these concepts, we find that right and wrong are not absolute. Rather, they are subjective products deeply embedded in our culture, history, experiences, and personal values.

The Relativity of Right and Wrong
We tend to think of right and wrong as absolute judgments, especially when influenced by our education, religious beliefs, and social environment. Traditional moral concepts tell us that certain behaviors are "unacceptable," while others are "worthy of praise." However, this way of thinking overlooks a crucial point: right and wrong are relative. They depend on cultural backgrounds, historical periods, social norms, and even personal beliefs and experiences. Take a simple example: in some countries, eating meat is considered a natural behavior, but in certain religious and cultural contexts, vegetarianism is seen as the only "right" choice. The same behavior can be assigned entirely different moral values within different cultural and moral frameworks. Further, at certain points in history, slavery was considered "right" and even legalized. Today, we would unequivocally condemn slavery, which only shows the evolving nature of moral standards. Right and wrong are not fixed but fluctuate with time, society, and individual perspectives. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized traditional moral views, proposing the concept of the "revaluation of values." He emphasized that human beings create their moral values, which do not originate from any sacred or absolute truth. This suggests that our understanding of right and wrong can be challenged and redefined. What we consider "right" may very well be a construct shaped by a particular historical context or social situation.

The Influence of Subjective Experience on Right and Wrong
Beyond the relativity of culture and history, personal subjective experience also profoundly influences our judgments of right and wrong. Each person makes moral judgments based on their experiences, values, and emotions. People's personalities, upbringing, and life experiences shape their worldview, thus affecting their views on what is right and what is wrong. For example, someone who has experienced war may have a completely different understanding of peace and violence compared to someone who has never been exposed to conflict. Similarly, a person who has lived in extreme poverty may be more inclined to question the "justness" of wealth inequality, while someone raised in a wealthy environment might view the existing economic system as "right" and justified. Although right and wrong may seem like rational judgments, the basis for these judgments is often deeply rooted in emotion. Our sense of morality comes not only from logical reasoning but also from how we feel about the world. This emotional and personal experience embeds right and wrong in a more individualized and contextual framework.

The Clash Between Moral Relativism and Universalism
In philosophy, "moral relativism" holds that moral values and judgments are relative to specific cultures, societies, and individual beliefs, with no absolute moral standards applicable in all situations. This contrasts with "moral universalism," which posits that certain moral principles should apply to all human beings, regardless of culture or background. The collision between these two views has sparked much debate in contemporary society. For example, globalization has facilitated more frequent interactions between different cultures, and the diversity of moral perspectives has become a source of conflict. Some argue that we should respect the moral values of each culture and not impose the values of the West or any other single culture on others. However, others insist that some fundamental moral principles, such as "human rights" and "justice," should be universal and transcend cultural differences. How should we respond to these complex moral conflicts? The answer may not lie in choosing one absolute stance over the other but in recognizing the flexibility and relativity of right and wrong itself. Whether for individuals or societies, we must continuously rethink and adjust our moral frameworks in response to a changing world. We should be humble enough to accept that others may hold different moral views and wise enough to question and challenge moral systems that may lead to injustice.

A Pragmatic View of Right and Wrong
The perspectives of American pragmatist philosophers like William James and John Dewey offer another way of thinking about right and wrong. Pragmatists believe that the correctness of an action or idea should be judged based on its effects in real life. In other words, whether a behavior is "right" depends on whether it promotes human well-being and leads to positive outcomes. From this pragmatic perspective, right and wrong are no longer abstract, universally applicable principles but should be evaluated based on specific circumstances. This approach provides flexibility, allowing us to adapt to different moral challenges. At the same time, it reminds us that we should not cling to any one moral judgment but adjust according to experience and results.

A Hope for the Future: Facing Uncertainty with Openness and Inclusivity
When we acknowledge the subjectivity and relativity of right and wrong, we may feel uneasy, as this challenges the moral foundations we have long relied upon. However, this uncertainty also opens up infinite possibilities. It allows us to realize that our moral values can evolve and improve over time. We can reexamine our belief systems based on new experiences and knowledge. In today's increasingly globalized and diverse world, having an open and inclusive attitude is more important than ever. We should not simply assume that our own values are the only correct answers but instead respect the differences of others and understand the uniqueness of each culture and individual. At the same time, we should take a clear stance against injustice and oppression, promoting actions that contribute to the common good from the perspective of human well-being. I hope we can embrace this open attitude, accepting the complexity of the world while continuously reflecting on our moral standards with humility and empathy. In this process, right and wrong no longer imprison our thinking but guide us in the pursuit of truth and justice. This ongoing process of reflection and growth will not only make us wiser but will also push us toward creating a more just and harmonious society together. Between right and wrong, there will always be a fluid boundary. This boundary, though ambiguous, is where the meaning of our exploration lies. We continuously walk along this boundary, searching for our footing, and as we move forward, we journey together in the pursuit of a better future that transcends our current horizons.