QUOTE
Why? If it's not wrong to take the money then it's not wrong to beat him for it.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong to take the money, I said that there is no
absolute right/wrong in any instance. Personally (as I have said before) I think it *is* wrong to take the money, I also happen to think that it is wrong to use violence in this situation.
QUOTE
QUOTE
There is no universal right and wrong that all individuals recognize. There are actions that all societies recognize as wrong.
That is exactly what I think of in terms of the 'universal' regard for right and wrong. It isn't an individual concept, but a general societal regard for what's acceptable
The reason is because some actions are beneficial to society, and, as we are social animals living in a such a cooperative society, they are beneficial to ourselves and everyone. I disagree that all societies have the same code of behaviour/sense of morality, but they all have the same purpose of holding society together - if that is what you mean by 'universal' then I agree with you.
QUOTE
To argue there is no universally accepted right and wrong is not the same as arguing there is no right or wrong. If I choose to believe that a chair is actually an elephant it does not change the fact that the chair is a chair. It just means I am nuttier than a fruitcake (no gay slur intended).
But a chair is a concrete, absolute object. The concept of 'right' and 'wrong' are abstracts that do not actually exist - 'wrong' is something that harms society or the poeple in it and 'right' is something that does the opposite. If a society chooses to kill some people because they are detremental to it (like America puts people on death row for example) then they are acting (in their own belief) in a morally right way, although not everyone would agree; to take amlord's example:
QUOTE
Would you excuse Hitler's behavior simply because he, himself, believed he was acting morally?
I would not excuse Hitler, because what he did was against my moral code, and I do not think he was benefiting society - but in his idea of what a society should be like - with no opposition, no communists and no Jews - he was benefiting it, and so he was doing 'good' (although I emphasize that I do not in any way agree with him for doing this).
Morality is completely subjective, and even though the basis for it is universal, morality itself is not.