One of the problems of ethics is what should be understood by morals and to what extent they should limit people’s actions and implant responsibilities, whether morals should come from the inside or the outside. There exist opposing views on this matter.
Such schools as utilitarianism hold that our moral duty is to help others and to build our actions so that the maximum number of people will benefit from them. On the contrary, schools like libertarianism suggest that we are the owners of ourselves, of our lives and our property and can act in any way that suits us, unless by this we harm others. Here, it is important to reflect on what harming implies. This is a very wide and hard to define concept. In some situations it might be argued that harming another person in one way, we simultaneously benefit them in another. On the other hand, just doing nothing, not interfering can result in a greater harm than any action. So it seems reasonable to suggest that whether an action is harmful, should be decided in each specific situation.
It might be that the truth is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, it seems logical and fair to suggest that we can do whatever we like, if this doesn’t harm anyone. On the other hand, our society will never move on a more advanced level of development, if this is the case. Hatred and anger, and many other negative emotions that rule many people’s actions nowadays can only be overcome by the sense of morality that comes from inside and not from outside, that is not imposed but rather comes in the form of each person’s true desire to help others, the ability to love and feel mercy for others. The fact that in today’s world people, capable of this at a large scale, represent the minority might be our greatest problem. The answer to the question then is: it is right that everyone should have the right and freedom to act in any way that doesn’t harm others, but the ability to love and to help others should be installed in every person from their childhood, it should become an instinct.