Replies

Most things in life are black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. There are some gray areas (the so-called "lifeboat" scenarios), but they are the rare exceptions not the rule.

My standard of right and wrong has to do with whether or not force or fraud is involved. This is based on the essential nature of human beings and the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Man cannot exercise those inalienable rights and live as man ought to and was intended to live if he cannot exercise his free will.

This is why I say that it is moral (although not particularly nice) for parents to attempt everything short of force to make their child marry someone of their choosing. It is immoral to cause the child imprisonment or physical harm if they do not do as they have been told.

I think that any other example that you might suggest for the propoaition that right and wrong is a subjective, relative concept would be analyzed in the same way.

"I don't need the bible to know certain things are wrong."

Then, you have your own focal point of right and wrong. My point remains the same. It is all in one's perception of right and wrong. And, that is what relative, i.e. moving, standards are all about. Those standards go from the lowest order of importance to the highest.

I note that you are Freeping all over the place instead of responding to my post to you. Any particular reason?

I think that if you consider my statements you would be hard pressed to maintain your position that right and wrong is subjective or relative.