'Large and Small' versus 'Right and Wrong'

'Large and small' are physical judgments which we usually base around a relativistic view, using some idea of 'normal' as our base. 'Normal' is usually the size of our physical body, so that 'large' is large compared to us physically, and 'small' is small compared to us. Sometimes we use other comparisons, as in a 'small planet' would somehow be referenced to our earth, or to one of the smallest planets in the solar system. It is always our own experience in which we locate the reference.

'Right and wrong' are moral judgments, and so do not have a physical reference - the reference is in the realm of thought. Here there are two schools of thought, because some think there are moral absolutes, usually defined by some scriptural reference or other. Others think that there is a more subjective reference, which would be more similar to the 'large and small' case. I suspect it might be easier for two people to agree on what is 'large' than to agree on what is 'wrong' in a moral sense. This is assuming that 'wrong' here is not used in the context of 'incorrect'

However, if we refer the matter to Jesus, he said "It is by their fruits ye shall know them", which I think argues for a definition based ultimately on results and consequences. This is not that different from the old saying, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." This is a more flexible and relativistic definition of right and wrong, and comes closer to the way we tend to treat 'large and small'. So just as you can tell a tree by its fruit, so can you judge an action or an idea by its intended or actual results.

The difference is that 'large and small' are definitions which I can make for myself without involving anyone else, for the most part. If I think that Pluto is a large planet, and you don't, so what? No harm is done. But moral issues tend to involve interactions between people and groups. If I think you are wrong in a moral sense, unless I can point specifically to adverse consequences, I am on shakier ground, because my judgment is directed at another person.

Both things are based on 'appearances', and it is hard to remember that appearances are not truth. Appearances can mislead, because they may depend as much on the observer as on the thing being observed. 'Judging Righteously' is a challenge. Here we ought to remember the caution we are given, to "...not judge as the world judges", because normally the world judges by appearances.

When it comes to appearances, we can think of a boil or infection beneath the skin. It forms with no outward appearance, and so does not attract our attention. Doesn't this remind us of world affairs, where problems that frustrate entire peoples get ignored? (Think of the festering of resentment across the Middle East, or think of the crushing weight of German poverty after World War I. ) Then the sore erupts through the skin, and the ugly appearance of it cannot be ignored. ( In world affairs we see this as either war, revolution, or terrorism.) In reality this point is when the situation cries out to be healed. That which we do not pay our attention to, will emerge in a form that cannot be ignored.

We tend to see this emergence of chaos and ugliness as the beginning of the problem. If we judge righteously, we could see it as the ending stage of the problem, and the beginning of the solution. Just as the infection we spoke of begins to heal once it erupts (sorry for the ugly example!) so the problems among families, nations, and whole peoples are ready for solution once they reach our full attention.