There are surely a few axioms in this universe even though I can't think of any right now. But otherwise I think everything is amatter of interpretation. What people believe is right is right. What people believe is wrong is wrong.

Rape. Rape is wrong. Right? Sure. But if all mankind suddenly went sterile except from a thousand fertile women who refuse to have children, would it still be wrong to force them to bear the seed of mankind further? (Skip the misanthropic crap for a while, will ya?)

Murder. Murder is wrong. Right? Well, I can think up quite a few situations where it would be a good thing.

Stealing. Stealing is wrong. Right? But if you are starving and I have a food war with my pals, would it be immoral of you to sneak in and salvage the leftovers, even if that would require you to unlawfully enter my house and take it against my will? No.

Up. Up is the opposite of down. Right?
Yeah, right. Don't tell me there is a "down" in this universe. There are only directions to and from certain entities, end even that is kinda hard to tell when the gravitational fields intertwine and bend space.

Dark! Dark is the absence of light! Well, per definition, yes. But that definition is a construct. What does dark mean to a species without eyes? The lack of a radiation which is pointless?

And so on. I hereby postulate the thesis that there is no absolute right or wrong, no matter how scientific. Those concepts are all constructs primarily based on human values and depend solely on interpretation.

Anyone disagree?

Nesuwer,

Agreed, but you wouldn't want me to end up in Nakkhu jail, would you?

Rape = good thing
Murder = ditto
Stealing = ibid

Word of caustion to all you Sajha readers: Don't try the above at home!

Om maane peme hum :)

No. Furthermore, I don't see how anyone could. I wouldn't even know where to begin if I wanted to play the devil's advocate, and that's a rare event. :)

Seriously, does anyone here believe in moral absolutes? If so, how do bring peace between your moral and rational mind set?

My views are slightly different from my alias-alike on this.
''What people believe is right is right. What people believe is wrong is wrong. ''

Agreed to an extent. It's up to an individual amongst the six billions plus humans to determine what is right or wrong. Anything could be absolute right or absolute wrong for an individual, according to his/her belief. For eg. a rapist must be believing that rape is the right thing for him to do at the moment he does that. May sound weird, but I guess that is true, as long as the nervous system of the rapist is functioning well at the time of the assault.

However, It's the consequence that leads him to believe what he is doing is right. Thats where collective belief should win over an individual belief to prevent such crimes. Thats the instance where rational/relative truth should supress individual truth or let's say absolute truth. Hence education, religion, culture, ethics , morality and jurisdiction are there as the determinant of rightness of abstract and emotional behaviours. Unless science discovers what is absolute right (unfortunately it has already conceded it can't), you got to accept collective/rational 'right' as the better 'right' over individual 'right'.

How to persuade individual rightness to submit to rational rightness ? I have an idea- Sometimes you have to upset some people to get what you want, or in this case, what's right. Having the strength to get through it is yours and then some, how other people deal with things has to be up to them, I guess. Upset the individual till the rational 'right ' overcomes an individual 'right'.

Am I right? I think I am absolutely right.

Stealing. [A] Stealing is wrong. Right? [B] But if you are starving and I have a food war with my pals, would it be immoral of you to sneak in and salvage the leftovers, even if that would require you to unlawfully enter my house and take it against my will? No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that A is wrongness of an act as such, and B of an action in a context. Apples and oranges yes, but which is the one that should be matter of judgement, (a) acts as such or (b)action+context?

A way to go with a is to argue that 'Steeling is wrong' derives from some another (higher principle) which is wrongly applied in latter case. You'll get some pretty elaborate and often incoherent structures down this path.

The problem with B is that it doesn't follow absolute guide lines in the level of acts as such, which makes things complicated and can lead to double-standards.

Personally, I believe that the fuzziness of B is fuzziness of the world and thus we have no other choice than judges actions as the situtation arises. This is cognitively uneconomical and perhaps impossible. Which is why principles are still needed, but with the interpretation that they establish burden of proof not absolute rules. Meaning that stealing is always wrong unless there is a greater good that over-rides its wrongness, decision of which is what deliberation is all about.