I KNOW of no great philosopher, past or present, who has pronounced definitively on what is morally right and morally wrong. I think Immanuel Kant came close to being a philosophy genius, but even Kant grappled with the puzzle but did not solve it.

Even if philosophy finally conquers the question, do we humans accept what is morally right and morally wrong?

Can there ever be a civilised part of the world we live in that has people who embrace an absolute definition of wrongs versus rights in the moral sphere. Are we not inherently flawed when it comes to deciding what is morally questionable?

In a world of nationalities, different races, opposing ideologies, can we separate our favouritism, bias and subjectivity and conclude that our fellow national, fellow political friend, fellow ethnic buddy was wrong to do what he/she did?

Could that happen in real life? What criteria do we use to condemn the moral lapses of others and deny the moral indiscretions of those we have personal reasons to protect? The essential point is – what is wrong and what is right?

Which act of a human should we hold against him/her and demand redemption? Is there consensus in civilized global society of what kind of human conduct is outrageous?

Let’s pursue the debate. Henry Kissenger is 100 years old and has earned dozens of millions on the lecture circuit in the US and Europe from rich corporations.

None of his paymaster was or is concerned that this gentleman committed serious human rights acts around the world in which millions lost their lives. Mr. Kissinger was involved in a coup plot that toppled the elected government of Chile ushering one of the worst fascist regimes in the world since the end of World War 2.

Here in Guyana, a place that is hardly known on the world stage, there is a goldmine in the philosophical debate about moral values.

If I was to do a text book on the subject, all my case studies would be taken from Guyana. Consider this example. Guyana’s High Commissioner resigned after the use of scatological remarks to a lady. His resignation was called for by several sections here.

Twice in its editorial, the Stabroek News referred to the former High Commissioner as a disgraced person. But that very newspaper ran a full page interview with a trade unionist in which he spoke about the need for good governance in Guyana.

But this man’s action towards another lady was more egregious than the former diplomat. He actually assaulted a woman half his size and is before the courts for that action. So, we ask the question again – could there be a consensus on the distinction between moral rights and moral wrongs?

Let’s go to Australia where the dilemma has been placed on the world stage. In the life of any journalist or columnist, there are parts of the world they like and parts they will never care for. For me, Australia would be on bottom of my list. There are strong perceptions that racism against non-White people is prevalent in Australia.

There are also shared views that Australians are some of the world’s rudest and most ill-mannered nationality. Most of all, Australia as a country, has been dubbed by many as one of the most unprincipled nations in the arena of sports, particularly cricket.

In my columnist career, I have done two items in which I described the nature of that nationality. Please see my articles of Monday, April 2, 2018, “If Switzerland and Australia were Black countries,” and, Tuesday, February 20, 2018, “Australian horror: Thank God it wasn’t a Black family.”

A few days ago, Australia won a match in test cricket against England in what could be considered one of the most disgraceful methods used to win a game in international cricket in the history of the game.

Cricket when it originally started, was labelled the gentleman’s game. That image was preserved for more than a century until Australia destroyed it.

The crowds at the Lords cricket ground were so angry that the Australians were booed while returning to their dressing room and were almost assaulted.

But you have to see the television coverage in Australia. While the English spectators were fuming, Australian television anchors and correspondents were hurling huge insults at the English spectators.

Now mind you, these were reporters who by the sacred principles of journalism cannot editorialise when reporting the news. The members of Lords were described as old men who should be pushed into the sea.

A nation stood by its wrong-doers because the wrong-doers were from that country. If the sportsmen were from the Third World and had done that, do you know how the world would have reacted?