The right thing to do.

[Age]

What is ALWAYS the right thing to do?

Recognize and respect the other guy's exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Expect the other guy to recognize and respect your exclusive claim to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Now where have I heard that before?

And the one who KEEPS REPEATING 'that' STILL can NOT YET SEE the BLATANT HYPOCRISY and INCONSISTENCY IN 'that'.

[Age]

If a person wanted to do the right thing in this world. What would that right thing be? I know it depends upon the person but is there something anyone and everyone can do as a matter of rule so that EVERY one of us can participate in being right? What is ALWAYS the right thing to do? Or what do all "right" things to do have in common?

No there isn't. First "right" is a relative, not absolute descriptor (not unlike tall or hot).

LOL It could be ARGUED, and SUCCESSFULLY, that 'right' IS CLOSER TO ABSOLUTE than 'tall' and/or 'hot' is.

Therefore it's use varies depending on whose perspective is being applied, which makes it subjective.

Is there absolutely ANY 'thing', which is NOT 'subjective', TO 'you'?

Thus like all other subjectives there is no universality of OPINION on what is or is not "right".

LOL

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW BELIEFS AFFECTED the way 'these people', back then, SAW 'things'.

Is there a so-called 'universality of OPINION' that there is NO 'universality of OPINION' on what is or is not 'right'?

If no, then WHY do you PRESUME your OWN 'OPINION' IS the 'universal one' or the 'right one'?

Also, 'these people, back then, STILL seemed to have NOT YET FATHOMED that ABSOLUTELY EVERY time one CLAIMS that there are NO 'universality' or 'one truth', that they have JUST CONTRADICTED "their" 'self', and thus are ALSO being VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

SAYING and/or CLAIMING that there IS NO 'universal truth' or NO 'one truth' is JUST a 'self-refuting' CLAIM.

[Age]

If a person wanted to do the right thing in this world. What would that right thing be? I know it depends upon the person but is there something anyone and everyone can do as a matter of rule so that EVERY one of us can participate in being right? What is ALWAYS the right thing to do? Or what do all "right" things to do have in common?

No there isn't. First "right" is a relative, not absolute descriptor (not unlike tall or hot). Therefore it's use varies depending on whose perspective is being applied, which makes it subjective. Thus like all other subjectives there is no universality of OPINION on what is or is not "right".

Exactly! It's a question that can only be defined or resolved in context which can relate to a million different things. It doesn't require philosophy to figure that out! If there were only ONE right thing as a matter of rule it would uncomplicate life tremendously and require a uniform psyche to accept.

Since when has that ever happened?

NOT BEFORE 'now', when this was being written, AT LEAST.

[Age]

Recognize and respect the other guy's exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Expect the other guy to recognize and respect your exclusive claim to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Does the other guy have to respect mine also, or is there a reason why you feel the need to only tell me to respect his?

The question is What is ALWAYS the right thing to do? not What is ALWAYS the right thing for Gary to do?

The answer...

Recognize and respect the other guy's exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Expect the other guy to recognize and respect your exclusive claim to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

...is meant for everyone.

So, if 'this' is supposedly MEANT FOR 'everyone', then WHY do 'you', "henry quirk", DO the OPPOSITE?

[henry quirk]

So, if 'this' is supposedly MEANT FOR 'everyone', then WHY do 'you', "henry quirk", DO the OPPOSITE?

I don't. If you have evidence I do: present it.

[Age]

So, if 'this' is supposedly MEANT FOR 'everyone', then WHY do 'you', "henry quirk", DO the OPPOSITE?

I don't. If you have evidence I do: present it.

I have NOT just 'evidence' but ACTUAL Proof, which is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

But BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'you' do NOT DO the OPPOSITE of what 'you' TELL "others" TO DO, there REALLY IS NO POINT in PRESENTING 'It'.

[henry quirk]

So, if 'this' is supposedly MEANT FOR 'everyone', then WHY do 'you', "henry quirk", DO the OPPOSITE?

I don't. If you have evidence I do: present it.

I have NOT just 'evidence' but ACTUAL Proof, which is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

But BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'you' do NOT DO the OPPOSITE of what 'you' TELL "others" TO DO, there REALLY IS NO POINT in PRESENTING 'It'.

In other words: you got nuthin'.

[Age]

I don't. If you have evidence I do: present it.

I have NOT just 'evidence' but ACTUAL Proof, which is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

But BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'you' do NOT DO the OPPOSITE of what 'you' TELL "others" TO DO, there REALLY IS NO POINT in PRESENTING 'It'.

In other words: you got nuthin'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, PRESUMPTION, BEFORE CLARITY.

[henry quirk]

I have NOT just 'evidence' but ACTUAL Proof, which is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

But BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'you' do NOT DO the OPPOSITE of what 'you' TELL "others" TO DO, there REALLY IS NO POINT in PRESENTING 'It'.

In other words: you got nuthin'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, PRESUMPTION, BEFORE CLARITY.

You got nuthin'.

[Age]

In other words: you got nuthin'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, PRESUMPTION, BEFORE CLARITY.

You got nuthin'.

LOL

If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then 'this' MUST BE TRUE, right "henry quirk"?

[Harbal]

Recognize and respect the other guy's exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Expect the other guy to recognize and respect your exclusive claim to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Now where have I heard that before?

And the one who KEEPS REPEATING 'that' STILL can NOT YET SEE the BLATANT HYPOCRISY and INCONSISTENCY IN 'that'.

Henry quirk, you have been found guilty of blatant hypocrisy; do you have anything to say before you are removed from this forum, and deprived of your life, liberty and property?

[henry quirk]

Henry quirk, you have been found guilty of blatant hypocrisy

Not possible, your Honor. The Prosecution has entered no evidence to support its accusation.

do you have anything to say before you are removed from this forum, and deprived of your life, liberty and property?

I am innocent till proven guilty, your Honor.

[Harbal]

Henry quirk, you have been found guilty of blatant hypocrisy

Not possible, your Honor. The Prosecution has entered no evidence to support its accusation.

do you have anything to say before you are removed from this forum, and deprived of your life, liberty and property?

I am innocent till proven guilty, your Honor.

Very well; case dismissed. You are free to go.

[henry quirk]

Henry quirk, you have been found guilty of blatant hypocrisy

Not possible, your Honor. The Prosecution has entered no evidence to support its accusation.

do you have anything to say before you are removed from this forum, and deprived of your life, liberty and property?

I am innocent till proven guilty, your Honor.

Very well; case dismissed. You are free to go.

[commonsense]

If a person wanted to do the right thing in this world. What would that right thing be? I know it depends upon the person but is there something anyone and everyone can do as a matter of rule so that EVERY one of us can participate in being right? What is ALWAYS the right thing to do? Or what do all "right" things to do have in common?

Are you trying to ask whether morality is objective?

I am asking NOTHING more than what is asked in my questions as stated. But you are welcome to reply as you see fit, mostly because I cannot stop you from replying as you see fit, even if I wanted to.

Then the answer to all your questions is no, it’s not possible.

That right thing would have to be determined by consensus. Otherwise, a thing could not always be the right thing to do.

But the evidence that a universal right thing is impossible can be found on this forum, on this thread, with this limited sample

But taking the objectivist point of view as if it were a priori, I think refraining from killing a living creature without good reason would always be the right thing to do.

But wait. What does “good” mean and what is a “good reason”? How can refraining from killing be the thing that would always be right to do, when there’s uncertainty about what the thing is?

If refraining from killing for the wrong reasons can’t be the thing that is always right to do, then how can anything else be always right?