Can there be a definite line between right and wrong?

[DaveC426913]

I cannot see the logical reasoning for many actions being condemned and others praised. Tattoos and piercings are a great example.

You're not thinking that any rational person has a judgement on whether tattoos and piercings are morally right or wrong are you?

Certinly a kneejerk reaction of many people is that they are "wrong" but they are merely overstating their stance. If pressed, I guarantee they will concede that personal adornment is not an objective moral call.

Tats and piercings are a straw man argument.

 

[Pattonias]

It seems to me that the inability to come to a straight answer without redifining the question with a more confined definition of right and wrong is enough to derive a answer.

No, there can be no definite line between right and wrong. This is, of course, my opinion.
The statement itself is a paradox.

 

[vectorcube]

Buddy, all you do is claim that everyone who disagrees with you, doesn't understand.

What are you really proposing anyway besides throwing down some irrelevant-to-the-real-world philosophy?

Show me how your philosophy provides the correct solution to a real world dilemma.

For the record, i did gave reasons for moral realism. The grounds for it is everywhere in this thread, and this is simply a fact.

Well, you say philosophy is not relevant. I am not really going to get into the relevants of philosophy.

In our case, all you need to know is that modern philosophy is very much like math and logic. Philosophers started with many combinatorical positions, and narrow them down to one or two positions using logic and reason, and the justification is accessible to the non-technical comsumers with patiences.

So if you want to read something technical, then go for post 82. For a non-technical account, try to look at my other posts.

 

[Pattonias]

I'm ready for the scientifically tested book of morality. It could provide the mathematically proven correct moral responce to all of lifes dilemnas.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread has run from one extreme to the other - Evo turned in a dollar that didn't belong to her and other posts debated killing people. Can everyone agree the extremes are not equal? The argument can be broken into 3 parts, typical personal behavior, extreme personal behavior, and Government behavior.

As for typical behavior, Evo made a point that small acts count, such as not keeping something that you find - and you can reasonably believe someone else would not throw away. The same argument would apply to a kind act such as helping someone who has fallen on the sidewalk, or appears to be having a heart attack, or perhaps sharing a sandwich with someone who looks like they don't have anything to eat. These are things we can do and decisions we can make on a daily basis. These behaviors define us in society. Helping other people is typically considered "right".

By comparison, whether we decide to kill someone or not also defines us in society. The legal system judges extreme behaviors. Apparently, planned killing by an individual is "wrong" and accidental killing is subject to review.

However, the rules between Governments are different. State sponsored killing is also subject to review - rights and wrongs seem to be subject to interpretation after the fact.

 

[Pythagorean]

Apparently, planned killing by an individual is "wrong" [...]

Except for when it's sanctioned by the government in either the military or justice system.