Is there such thing as right and wrong?

There was a heated debate at the dining table between my dad and I about The Romance of Three Kingdoms (known as one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature) when my dad tried to share his thoughts over the chapters he had gone through.

(Although I have not had the time to read the novel yet, so far my understanding to this book from Chinese lessons and my dad, is that the story is set in the restless years between the end of China's Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdom's era, where turbulent chaos and unceasing battles took place. The story is written based on myths and legends, but a significant parts are records of genuine history. It revolves around the struggles among the three power blocs over the dominance of China.)

My dad's sharing then came to the ways of how the three war leaders weakened and limited each others power with different strategies, to name a few, The Beauty Trap, Create Something from Nothing and Loot a Burning House (it may sound odd but these are translations I get from Wikipedia). As he told me more, I could only conclude that these strategies are about people playing off against each other, and being able to stay out of the troubles while neglecting the agonies of guilt. It slightly irritated me when my dad told me these were strategies that would equip me for life and that I should study them carefully when I have time. I did not get why he called these stratagems intelligent and sagacious so I came up with a question to challenge his idea.

'With all these behaviours, can those war leaders still be considered as a good person?', I asked.

At that moment, I strongly believed they were not because of their treacherous deeds in order to gain power.

My dad thought for a moment and answered, 'There is not a proper definition of good,' he continued, 'You have to investigate careful sources, and then find out which one best describes the human condition and reality.'

He further went on elaborating his ideas, citing examples and here are the ultimate message that I got from him:

There are no absolute sense such as right and wrong - What is right to you maybe wrong to me. It always stands on the the matter of values. Personal values. As for the right and wrong things that normal people refer to, are things that people consider them as social norms. They are either moral or immoral, while these ideas are shaped by the people in society over the years. Figuratively speaking, there are two hearts in every person. The heart of 'want' and the heart of 'desire': One is for one that loves to do the right thing while one that prefers to be selfish.

One example: Killing another human being. Not right or wrong. It depends on which point you are viewing from - war, self-defense, capital punishment...There are plenty of reasons for the taking of lives.

Eventually, you need to develop an awareness of the struggles going on inside you. As for the case in The Romances of the Three Kingdom, apparently the war leaders chose to follow their own values. They chose to be good to themselves by believing in oneself and pursue their dreams. It is all about benefit and loss.

In the end, I was partly convinced by him in the sense that he pointed out right and wrong is something subjective and there are different ways to define good. But then, I came up with one counter question which is the part that I held back and remained in doubt - Will you say it is right for a person to kill someone he dislikes simply to fulfill his desire and be loyal to himself? Because if you do, you’ll end up forcing your beliefs on others.

So, is there something wrong if we force our beliefs on others?