Questioning Morals

Unfiltered expressions run the risk of becoming too sensational, idiotic, even full of errors in reasoning and grammar. Likewise, uncensored ideas can either incite a revolt or kill the person who gave birth to it... Therefore, say less when you want to say more and know what is it your willing to lose before you give gambling a thought. This is my philosophy of what a man should be.

What a man should be is a matter entirely different to what a man is. Standards are made in every profession- this I presume- because the tendency to fall into error is ever present. From these observations I think that knowing what is desirable or good and what is undesirable and bad matters. I don't want to say that these two are existent. Good is good because it is and bad is bad because it is not good. There is only presence or absence of what is good or desirable as in the case of light and dark and right and wrong. Exceptions can occur as in cases of selecting which one to save first in an emergency where a man's wife and child are about to fall in a cliff and time is running out. This is a dilemma, a point where any choice between the two is right and neglect of either of them is wrong. This is an evidence, I think, to the inherent limitations of man which requires him to acknowledge lest he fall for this incident if he not discern his actions. However, if he falls in this predicament, I believe that he must be reminded to select in the light of "the greater good" not in the notion of "the lesser evil". How these two differs reflects how everyone rationalizes their actions but in either philosophy one is rooted in truth and one is personal desire. What a man should be is a matter entirely different to what a man is and the standards of what he should be are the choices he makes in reference to what is good and bad.

Between what is right and wrong and good or bad, who ultimately decides then?