INTRODUCTION

Deal of moral concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime has always been crucial to determine how well codes and laws should be to respect the individuals' freedom and, at the same time, when applied in a general and impartial way, they should also ensure the whole of system of the same; the laws system should reconcile the common good with individual, and with the protection of functional system of law's application itself.

The behavioral concepts of right, wrong and indifferent, cannot ignore the concept of voluntariness, so acts proper to a rational being, those performed with will to execute em, are never indifferent acts, but ethier they are good or not, even if it is obvious that may be acts that intentionally good, and bad in their implementation, or vice versa. From the actor's point of view this does not change their value. Here remains the problem of determining what is right and what is wrong, what is good or what is bad ...

A version of the ten commandments

RELATIVISM

Let us briefly speak of 'relativism'. Who is relativist argues that absolute truth does not exist, or even if it exists, is not knowable or expressible or, alternatively, is knowable or expressible only partially (in fact, relatively); individuals can therefore only get knowledge about, because every statement refers to particular factors and it's true only in reference to them.
The first appearance of relativism occurs within the Greek sophistry; for the sophists, no cognitive act can reach the objective nature of things, nor there's an absolute truth valid for everyone.
The modern point of view, of which Ludwig Wittgenstein was the main supporter, is that inevitably all knowledge is relative to the man sensitive experiences, because everying is filtered by human perceptions, limited and imperfect. Wittgenstein also comes to denying implicitly the existence of ethology with absurd statements like this one:

Instead, like most dog owners worthy of the name know from experience - I quite understand what my pet wants, and how and why he shows his affection to me, even if he can not speak; imagine if he could do it! So I think the good Wittgenstein did not know really what it's about, and that his statement is absolutely false.

The anropological pretext underpinning the modern relativism is fixed on noting how some societies and human groupst have evolved where certain types of actions are judged right or wrong on the base of laws and customs that in another human society are judged in a totally opposite way.

In practice today's relativism is used instrumentally to attack Christianism and its bases , as well as by atheists and generally by materialist philosophers, by all those who, for their own interests or often for personal situations (let's call them skeletons in the closet), resent the existence of moral laws; generally it is not a philosophical position but the attempts to stifle the voice of their conscience. One could say that the relativist denies himself without realizing why.

NATURAL LAW

As is law has been established, is another topic that on one hand implies the concept of evolution of a society, and is part of political philosophy, and on the other implies the certainties of the Christian religion and not only of that.

Here, the discourse on both these aspects of the natural law would be too long: even if there can't be contradiction between the two, since they have same origin, each of which needs to be addressed in its own sphere that is the ethical and the political the one, and the religious the other. Let's make a speech elementary and pragmatic, examining the main 'articles' of this law in the ethical-political perspective.
Any way you look, you have to see that a natural law, inherent in man as a rational being who lives in community with others like him, definitely exists. As indeed there are specific physical and chemical laws that govern world and matter. I dare saying that this law has character of absolute and that his actual degree of presence and application, in both laws' systems and in individuals behavior, determines harmony and the human and material value of a community on the basis of the law itself.

Surely below there are obvious things, I would say trivial, but that are useful for the next step, that is, the affirmation of the sacredness of Natural Law. There are many statements of this Law, all equivalent. In the Catholic doctrine there are some of the practical requirements that must be accepted and observed to live in a civilized community. They are:

• Honour y father and y mother: taken for granted that the natural family is basic cell of society, this requirement also applies to children towards parents. We see in times of crisis how useful is the help of family and solidarity among its members. The lack of family and consequent suffering leads to conditions of psychic instability, with dramatic effects for individuals and negative for the whole society. In the animal world this law exists in the instinct of evolved animals, depending on the need of assistance and protection of newborns due to their special characteristics, because it ensures the species survival.


• You shall not kill: may ever subsist a group of rational beings whose law shoul be "Kill, if you can, or if it's useful to you, anyone who comes within your range"? The reasons: to eliminate a nuisance, to get possession of something that does not belong to you etc etc.
  The law can have an exception when interpreted as an admitted behaviour that leads you to defend yourself or your group, because a survival need. It's essential to firmly held that peace into the society and between nations is a main factor and a predominant need, and at physical violence must not normally be applied for other reasons. Oethrwise, as we see, atrocities, pains, and mass murder are not lacking. No one can say that such things are desirable, if not a madman. Or not?


• You shall not commit adultery: normally, can a man be happy about having to bring up a child that brings not his genes? Can a woman be happy that her partner has relationships with other women and neglects her welfare and that of her children? Evidently not. Certain situations, which in some movies and shows make it seem normal and quiet and civil, are unjust and cruel, especially in respect of children, the first ones who inevitably suffer economic or moral or mental consequences. 
  Sometimes there are serious consequences leading even to kill. Ethology tells us that the jealousy exists normally even in the animal world, in animals that live in groups, such as wolves or lions.


• You shall not steal [or kidnap] : you who did earn what you have with your job, or you got by your father the fruit of his, sure you cannot be happy that someone will take away something that you need to live or something or someone that you care about. You can voluntarily give away your assets and your time to help others, but if anyone subtracts them by fraud or violence, is does not make you some pleasure. How can you keep yourself and your loved ones and to ensure the future family welfare if someone robs you your property?


• You shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor: is there someone who feels nice and commendable to slander, to falsely accuse people, to insult the honor and decorum? Unfortunately today a misguided sense of 'democracy' and 'right to information', in reality it is envy and interest masked by anxiety of 'justice' or false prudery, encourages slandering and backbiting.
  But rarely someone try to consider what would feel himself to be on the victim side. But when the libel, slander or lies are made for interest to achieve economic or political, or benefits of any other type, one touchs the maximum abjection. This unfortunately is very fashionable today.


• You shall not covet your neighbor's wife: lust, greed or other feelings and inclinations to evil can lead a man, or woman, to seek the ruin of a family. Unnecessary details: put yourself in the shoes of someone who is injured like that. Some brilliant and even famous writer has written entire books about.


• You shall not covet your neighbor's house ... or anying at belongs to your neighbor: let's add social position and personal prestige to these thing. Envy and pride are feelings that stimulate a desire of what others have. If one does not do anying to achieve this desire, and continues to envy, only harms himself, and makes of his own a miserable existence. But desire can sometimes induce action, f.i. it minds steals and kills.
  I remind ose Nordic semi-nomadic tribe of ancient savages - Viking pirates - who worshiped a god (Odin) which prescribed them violence and theft against neighbors. Plus one preyed and killed more was considered a brave man.

We do not want consider here the law's spiritual meaning, but which does exist. In fact we haven't listed about the prescription of resting, nor the sanctification of time dedicated to rest, nor the obligations of gratitude that we owe to God the Creator.

However, both if one thinks that uppersaid laws are result of time and practice in human more advanced societies, or believing that they are part of all of e rules in force of Creation, well, you can not deny e guilt we feel inside us whenever we violate is laws, or try to do it.

About me, I began to feel a little voice inside, reproaching me when sometimes I stole peanuts from my mother's pantry, or unduly appropriated of some cents forgotten by someone, to buy one licorice stick in the aunty's Louiset shop. This inner voice has always encouraged me not to go overboard.

Lino Prospero Bertuzzi