Gray areas before dawn

"And people have different moral standards. It doesn't matter whether something is right or wrong, what's more important is who deems so…"

"Indeed, the concept does not change. However, the definition does to cope up with circumstances and sometimes, whims."

-M, Lucid Interval

Right and wrong, as concepts, center on two clashing ideas. One is the idea that certain acts are morally and civilly acceptable in today's world, the other is the idea that other acts are not. The fact that people define one activity as morally upright suggests that there is another, contrary to that activity, which is not--thus, the discourse in identifying which among the many clashing acts is right and which is wrong. 

Having said that, I go on to the question of definition. If it were true that people individually define right and wrong, then there will be as many definitions as there are people. Thus, a single act may be defined in infinitely many ways, thereby destroying the concept of two clashing ideas altogether. Ultimately, the concept of morality fails because morality resides in this very opposition.

Thus, in our definitions, there has to be limitations. 

There are acts which cannot be defined as nothing else but right, or nothing else but wrong. In the same vein, there are those which fall in the middle, the so-called "gray" areas of morality. The importance of the person's judgment becomes most apparent in these acts because people are more likely to disagree. 

So in whose hands then should the authority to decide lie? Or perhaps, a better question would be, what criteria should we use to decide?

Truth is relative, not relativist. Truth has many facets (relative), it does not subject itself to the whims or caprice of the person (relativist). The same goes for morality. Although it can be seen differently by many people from different perspectives, it can still constitute the same "right" and, conversely, define the same "wrong." It does not subject itself to the whims or caprice of the person.

Therefore, to answer the question, while it is true that the person judging is important, it is equally imperative to give importance to the concept of moral standards. 

Of course, moral standards are not static, nor are they set in stone. It is granted that these must also adapt with the changing times but only as a result of fruitful dialogue between persons, and not, again, as a mere result of their whims.

P.S.

This has been a fun exercise in intellectual discourse. Thanks Mak.