To be quite honest, I strip morality from the equation as it muddies the waters of intelligent action and reaction.

Right or wrong must be relative in a relativistic universe. From opposite sides of the teeter-totter who is to say which side is left and right? It depends on the position of the viewer. The same is true with morality.

The African slaves were held as "sub-human" as based on judgments of their culture and the living conditions they found them in. Greek & Persian slaves were often of equally sophisticated and educated cultures. I am quite certain the pro-slavery folks believed in the disparities and what's more - most scientists of the time did too. Descriptions of racial characteristics that included personality, intelligence and criminal propensity fluorished until the 1930s. Heck, your copy of the Book of Knowledge is likely to have such an article in it. Craftiness, shiftlessness, laziness, dim-wittedness and other unfair generalizations were placed atop a whole variety of races. The issue of the day was not dishonesty about what they believed, but rather was all about questioning the morality of enslaving anyone who was human, regardless of their disparity from accepted anglo-saxon cultural norms.

The truth of the matter is each person acts as they see fit and deem the most intelligent course of action. Right and wrong boils down to intelligent versus unintelligent action.

The question of government is one which places the views of either individuals or groups as the law and as the standard which others must conform to. The kings and emperors called the shots and then legislative bodies did. Each government is the byproduct of a select group and depending upon the form of government that group is smaller or larger, never all-inclusive. Man subjects others to his, or his groups, beliefs. Some are drawn to these groups and others are driven away.

Right and wrong in such a framework is the group or the collective's view versus the individual. America and a few other nations have tried, to varying degrees, to limit the restrictions upon the individual and that is why it is so appealing to people all over the world.

However the morality or "legislative will" of portions of the collective still exists, even in America. With this unflinching reality, the individual must attempt to express his own views and influence others to his/her way of thinking and seek the goal of these views being accepted by the collective.

Morality implies someone is judging the correctness of an action. It is rooted in religious fear and superstition and folks soon capitalized on such fear to create sets of rules and laws based on such fear of some mystical judgmental force. To this day more nations than not employ some form of this religion based fears in their legislation and laws.

As a result of all this, I see the world as action and reaction based upon a varying mental and cultural development. Right and wrong is stripped from the equation and one can see how each conflict is the result of these varying developments and implemented systems of government throughout the world. I fully understand that the suicide bomber is as convinced of his righteousness and goodness as the average western observer is convinced of its utter evil and barbarism. Both are right from their positions and in this sense moral relativism exists. The question that always arises:

Is there a higher moral rule that supercedes the views of the participants and observers and must be adhered to?

The answer, in a nutshell, is no. No gods, no infinite morality rule book that forbids anything.

The reality is the universe is a learning proposition and each eventually learns of the "evil" of their past actions if they are developing. And once they get to a certain point they no longer see evil standing alone. For the truly developed, evil is always accompanied by its twin good and vice-versa.

At this point all possible actions are seen in a somewhat balanced manner and a course of action is taken based upon the level of intelligence of the individual. The developed individual chooses a course or direction and the actions they take are designed to lead them in this direction. Some actions waylay them from their goal and others speed them towards it. They do not condemn others because they understand this relative development.

However when living in the flesh, and when threatened by others actions the individual is forced to test the measure of their beliefs and wisdom. How do they preserve themselves without interfering in the others natural growth (or declination) process? The UN and other such bodies are a failed attempt at this type of enlightened "live and let live" approach, mainly because they still can't overcome the dilemma of how to deal with the "live and let die" folks.

The answer, as can be expected, is an individual one. Each must choose their own participation and support of either their government, church or cultural environment and how they deal with those who wish their destruction or wish for them to change and conform to the way they wish for them to live.

And the universe will not judge these decisions, rather the individuals actions or reactions will place them in varying positions within the universe and they will have to learn to direct themselves accordingly or reap the consequences of their choices.