Ignorance to knowledge: 

Socrates' approach to knowledge was marvellous, the realization of ignorance is a bliss. It's a key to knowing what we don't know, it's the gate to enter the world of humbleness. 

People in science fields reach an absolute point, where they absolutely know what they don't know. They can't assume, for each assumption is as weak as nothing unless experimentally confirmed. 

People studying humanity have another choice, once encountering the unknown they start to creatively assume and all assumptions have plausible values. 

The two ways above, of concrete ignorance and dubious ignornace have their differing affect on our thinking. The person of concrete ignornace, i.e. the more scientific, would experiment in a lab and finally get the result that is confirmed. However... The person of no concrete ignorance (sociologic and humanitarian) would not have such lab, his own lab is the real life. People follow his/her ideas, risking the failiures that they contain. The real life is their lab and unless the experiment is done on people themselves, the results can't be obtained. 

Unlike the field of science, in the fields of life; God has revealed his guidance to people so that they don't go astray and misguided. People like Karl Marx, etc. with their various ideologies have inspired people and conspired against the real success of mankind unknowingly. 

Unless ignorance is concrete, correct knowledge is unobtainable. Unless people are safe from the experiments of "knowledgeable" people, that knowledge is not useful. If knowledge is not useful it's better to be discarded, and if not discarded then 

Two types of leaders: 

Two different people with leadership skills. How do we know who guides and who misguides? One approaches on the humble side, and one entices blind pride and self exaltation. The two leaders have their followers. One easily entices, and the other hardly convinces. 

The difference between the two types of leaders can be seen in the example of Moses, with his simplicity, standing infront of the proud and self exalted Pharoah with his luxuries. The encounter of reasoning and pride and misguidance is obvious enough to show the contrast. 

Morally wrong? Is it socially wrong or personally wrong!

What's morally wrong?

Interesting question and a debatable issue, and what if someone did what he/she judged as 'right' which we thought of as being 'wrong'. But is everything judgable on this basis?

Let's take a man having sex with a dead chicken, I've seen many oppositions to that! Basically it makes us think of it as a gross act, in our social standards, and thus refute it.

Our compassions (according to adam smith) lead us to put ourselves in the place of others and feel as we would've if we were in their position. So is the case with when we hear or think of someone acting in a refutable way, in our standards.

Now, what about the child, who might accidentally come accross his parents having sex with each other, and certainly this odd and irregular action between them leads him to react in a certain way that's unusual, and a psychological conflict would be produced, refusing such a thing from one's memory might lead the child to say it as wrong? Later in his/her life, the child would come to realise it was normal (i.e. everyone does it, even I when I'll get married) so it should be ok, althought even if I don't mind seeing other couples having sex for the pleasure that the watcher may get, but still watching one's own parents would give a separate reaction, it'd produce pleasure fulfilling thoughts towards people we can't imagine fulfilling it with, the reason being that socially we were never trained to accept that.

So, what it leads the child into thinking, one day is that when it creates a psychologica conflict, it's wrong on a personal scale because that which was personal was being exposed to more than being personal, (weather if he came to see his parents having it before he understood, or undertanding it before even he ever gets to see his parents actually doing it, although he wuold be able to conclude in his imagination), i.e.

if you were to know that your parents had always had sex it wouldn't offend you as much as if you were to understand it on your own, some day, and conclude on your own that it was right as long as they did it privately and didnt expose it much, nor exposed it so much as to making it seem normal to you (the person in consideration).

So, that which produces conflict is refuted, whether the conflict starts as a personal private issue omitting itself to the public, or as a public issue extending its effects to certain private individuals making them, perhaps oppose it due to the conflict it creates in their preferences.

One thing about philosophy and logical understanding is that everything is changeable, for say if the boy or girl were made available each time his/her parents had sex, the growing child would eventually become part of it, and part of it in a way that neither conflict would emerge nor a denial of need of fulfillment, i.e. the urge would take its toll and the normal social understanding would be swayed.

There are things that are personal, things that are social, but there's no fine line as to which is where and upto what limits. i.e. even if I think I'm in the bathroom alone (perhaps the most private place to be at home, in terms of comfort of being nude and acts that socially if done in the oppen would bring up the person a wrong doing's blame), would we still think that it's total privacy?

No matter how tiny it may seem, it should be recalled clearly, that for every particle of water, for everything that goes into the sewage, all that is occuring is somehow connected with the society as a whole.

Good point? Not only that, but even the society is a personal affair to a level.... (examples would be added)

Society and Persons are interchangeable. There's no such thing as a "perfectly personal" or a "perfectly social" act. And thus there's no such thing as "Completely wrong" from either one's perspective.