If there is anything constant on Earth, it is Time and Change and if there is one thing that changes with time, It is Morals. Mostly seen as "Right Behavior," Moral is never static, it is dynamic.

The Oxford dictionary defines Moral as A standard of behavior; a principle of right and wrong.
As clear and simple as the definition above, moral is most times confusing as it varies from place to place, from culture to culture, from religion to religion and from time to time.

Moral is never static, it is dynamic. What is called good in one place may be seen as bad in another place. For example, most pagan religions consider it good to have more than one wife but the Christian religion consider it bad to do so as it goes against the will of the Creator who created One Man to one Woman. Another example of the dynamic nature of Moral can be seen in comparisons of different centuries and millenniums. In some centuries back, Science was seen as an act that questions the Gods, and it was therefore a taboo but in today's world, science is seen as one of the backbone of humanity existence, the string that holds it all together.

Just as Moral is dynamic, it is also subjective or objective i.e Moral can either be defined by Culture, Religion, Nations, Society, families or Individuals.
Thus, it begs the question; who get to decide what is good or bad? What then should we consider as Good and Bad? Should moral be objective or subjective or should it be a bit of both?

In a country like ours where citizens are ignored by the government, where opportunities may be limited and narrow, where under privileged individuals are constantly been pushed to the wall just to make sense out of their lives and enjoy the simple basic needs of life(Food, shelter and Security), should moral be subjective or objective?

We have seen a high rise of internet fraud aka Yahoo yahoo amongst our young and growing population. Some see it as means to ends meet or a means to survival, others say it is us finally getting that which is rightfully ours, that which was stolen from our Fathers Fathers in the days of old But To the majority of the world, Internet fraud is seen as a serious offence as it involves deceiving unsuspecting victims inorder to rid them of their wealths and it may likely attract jail term if the offenders are caught. Do we then say Internet fraudsters are morally bankrupt for trying to survive and enjoy the basic needs of life? Are they different from those who tell white lies to gain advantage over others in Life's journey?

Moral as we know is ever changing and what was wrong or bad in times past can be seen as good in today's reality but does that justify the rise in trend of Internet Fraud(Yahoo Yahoo)?