An interesting problem, with more facets than most people care to deal with. The most common solution these days is to use the brute force technique i.e. "You're doing something wrong." There's also the finese technique, which goes something like"I don't think that would be a good idea."
And, certainly, there are moral issues where telling somebody that they're wrong is clear-cut. For example, it is wrong to kill. Period. End of story. Right?
Maybe not end of story. If we use such a short definition, then we're all guilty to certain degrees. I know I've wiped out a lot of insect life in my time. Have you ever weeded your garden? Dug up a carrot? Stepped in a field? Broken a tree branch? Taken a bath? Then you've killed. And with no major social repercussions.
OK, let's change the definition. How about this one: it is wrong to murder.
However, for those of us who are willing to ask questions, we sit down and try to define "murder". What is murder?
Hmmm. How about "willful taking of human life"?
On the whole, this seems like a satisfactory answer. And, yet, as we examine it, we realize that we can put holes in this one as well. What about killing in self-defence? If I shoot somebody who is shooting at me with intent to kill, am I a murderer? What if I shoot somebody who I suspect is going to shoot at me with intent to kill, am I a murderer?
What about euthanasia? Abortion? Other fuzzy moral issues that defy clear-cut answers?
The above makes an example of a rather interesting moral question- when is it right for a person to enforce a moral upon somebody else? Especially when the moral itself maybe a fuzzy grey area, unable to be defined within strict limits (as the law seems to believe it is capable of doing.)
For example, it is generally accepted that hitting your children is wrong. Yet, I was spanked when I was a child; as punishment when I did something really wrong. I don't hold any grudge against my parents for punishing me in that manner- in fact, I am rather glad they did, for it helped shaped the type of person I am today. Are my parents in the moral wrong because they spanked me as punishment? Some people tend to think so, that I am some maladjusted creature, never capable of living a normal life, because of the horrible trauma of being punished for doing bad things when I was young.
To those people who think being spanked at a young age is damaging, they believe that my parents are in the moral wrong. I personally believe my parents are in the moral right, as do some other people. (Inevitiably, the two groups of people think the other group is maladjusted for having/not having been spanked as children.)
So who enforces the code on who? Who's right, and who's wrong?
And, unfortunately, this is not just some academic exercise. At this moment, people are fighting wars over things such as morals. And all the people pulling the trigger on one side are absolutely convinced that they're "morally right", killing those that are "morally wrong."
What is the moral of all this? I wish I knew. I have my own set of values that I try to live by; and I know many people aren't willing to live under the rules I impose on myself. On the flip side, I allow myself certain things (i.e. laziness) that people with certain morals would condemn me for. It's a gigantic circle and it's threatens to suck us all in.
You're not going to find a moral at the end of this story. You're not going to find much. Just the idea that, maybe the things we condemn without thinking are the very things we should think about a little more.
Just the grey ones that we have to worry about.