This problem has existed in one form or another for a long time. There is the quote, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, or "who watches the watchers?" (attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal of the late 1st and early 2nd century AD, or CE for those who use that designation.) Our society gives power to certain groups to enforce what we believe is right (when we pass laws). One could, however, argue that passing laws to define illegal behavior falls into the category of "tyranny of the majority" which is equivalent to saying "might makes right." Some of you will remember the outcry caused by the state of New York forcing vaccination for measles as a public health issue after the recent outbreak. Or look at China, where you can get arrested in some cities if you don't wear a mask.
The problem is that it is hard to know what is right because frequently by the standards of "whatever laws are in effect." the right thing today can be the wrong thing tomorrow. A couple of cases in point:
1. The USA passed a law prohibiting the manufacture of certain kinds of potable alcohol, but took only a few years to revoke that law. So what was right and what was wrong? When someone drank whiskey, the law made that illegal in one decade and its revocation made drinking that same whiskey legal in the next decade. So... right or wrong?
2. In the UK, homosexuality was banned and people accused of it were forced to undergo certain chemical treatments. Alan Turing committed suicide due to the effects of those treatments. However, I think it safe to say that the UK has become more tolerant of homosexuality. Many of the UK's more flamboyant entertainers are homosexual and are still loved by the populace. Sir Elton John, for example. So homosexuality... right or wrong?
Despite certain groups that claim the existence of an absolute arbiter of right and wrong, that arbiter is often seen as capricious and/or inscrutable. To claim a moral absolute is to invite chaos since the human mind doesn't see things in absolutism. "Thou shalt not kill" is presented as an absolute, yet there was a time when the Israelites were commanded to kill the Amalekites. Today the question is "What penalty is appropriate for someone who DOES kill?" And we have no consensus.
The USA humorist and "cowboy philosopher" Will Rogers once described freedom this way: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." So when we talk of right and wrong, we have to ask if there is any rational standard. I don't recognize the claims made by certain groups regarding the moral absolutism involved here, because the Golden Rule pre-dates the Bible by a LOT. But "Treat others as you wish for yourself to be treated" in ANY of its variant forms has to be a starting point.
What is "wrong"?? Well, if it is something that you wouldn't want done to you then there is a good chance that it is "wrong." If you are a kinky minx and LIKE the treatment that would make others go running, it just shows that an attempt at absolutism won't cover everyone.
