Morality

I am going to go back to basics with you, and talk about right and wrong, or in a broader sense- morality (conscious or unconscious).
We have all done it, do it, and will continue to do it throughout our lives, some more than others, but none the less unavoidable: arguing. Arguing means trying to show that the other person is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and them had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are. As C.S. Lewis quotes about the Second World War: "What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."..." A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?"

These arguments are pretty faultless, and they both highlight the point that everybody is forced to believe in a 'right' and 'wrong'. Sometimes we get confused about what right and wrong is, just like we confuse our feelings, or a maths problem, but this does not mean they don't exist. My first conclusive point in this blog is that:
We all fail to do what is right and wrong.

We all fail to do even what we, as individuals, think is right and wrong, never mind a higher, global standard, if there is one. I will come onto this next.