The right thing to do.

[LuckyR]

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.

Saying this relative descriptor is "closer" to absolute than a different relative descriptor, while perhaps true is nonetheless admitting that it is relative. Thanks for that.

Saying it is 97 degrees F outside is objective, saying it's hot outside is subjective.

[Age]

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.

I NEVER use 'evidence', as 'evidence' is NOT 'proof', itself. And, OBVIOUSLY, as ONLY 'proof' IS IRREFUTABLE it would be VERY UNWISE to USE 'evidence' for absolutely ANY 'thing'. As PROVEN by when 'you', human beings, TRIED TO USE, 'the observation of the sun revolving around the earth' as 'evidence' that 'the sun does around the earth' and therefore 'the earth is at the center of the Universe'.

Also, I do NOT have to enter ANY 'evidence' NOR even ANY 'proof' to support my accusation of "henry quirk" being BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL here. As "henry quirk" has been and is continuing to provide and enter the 'proof', itself. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, and HEARD, above here where "henry quirk" WRITES and CLAIMS:

The answer to the question, 'What is ALWAYS the right thing to do?' is to 'recognize and respect the other guy's exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.' YET, while at the EXACT SAME time BELIEVING that "henry quirk" has some sort of 'claim' or 'right' to OVERRIDE "another's" said 'exclusive claim' to their, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. This BLATANT HYPOCRISY that can be CLEARLY SEEN 'here' can also be SEEN and OBSERVED throughout a LOT of "henry quirk's" other WRITINGS and CLAIMS.

Oh, and by the way, "your honor", the Fact that "henry quirk" is quite DISMISSIVE of 'woman's' and 'children's' 'rights' and 'their exclusive claims' here is being CLEARLY NOTICED and OBSERVED AS WELL.

There is NO MORE, for now, "your honor".

[Age]

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.

Oh well 'you' will have to DISREGARD my last reply and post as "henry quirk" has ALREADY been freed to go.

Which is more or less how "henry quirk" has gotten so far along as 'it' has here.

[Age]

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.

BUT, 'it' is NOT JUST POSSIBLE, 'it' has ALREADY BEGUN, and thus is ALREADY BEING DONE.

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

VERY, VERY True.

And, once one KNOWS, EXACTLY, and FOR SURE, what absolutely EVERY one could and would AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, thus 'determined by ABSOLUTE or FULL consensus', then 'that one' can START behaving that Right WAY.

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

LOL But NO 'universal right thing' has EVER been even SOUGHT. And mostly just because of the Fact that the MAJORITY of 'you' BELIEVE that ANY 'universal right thing' is NOT even POSSIBLE.

NOT a one of 'you' WILL SEEK OUT 'that' which OPPOSES what is currently being BELIEVED to be true.

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.

Or, in other words, and as I have continually be POINTING OUT, and SAYING, JUST DO NOT ABUSE ANY 'thing'.

Which is One Lore in which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT. And, by the way, IS the Right 'thing' to do, ANYWAY, and OBVIOUSLY.

ALL OTHER human made up 'laws' are, REALLY, Truly UNNECESSARY, besides being just Truly DETRIMENTAL AS WELL.

But wait. What does “good” mean and what is a “good reason”?

VERY, dare I say 'it', 'GOOD' QUESTIONS, which NEED TO BE ASKED, LOOKED AT, PONDERED OVER, and ANSWERED BEFORE ANY SERIOUS ABOUT 'What is a 'universal right thing to do' has even BEGUN.

How can refraining from killing be the thing that would always be right to do, when there’s uncertainty about what the thing is?

So, since it is 'you', "commonsense", who has been, and is again, USING the 'thing' word, then how about 'you' TELL and INFORM 'us' what the 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' have been talking ABOUT and DISCUSSING here?

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

But WHO is even CLAIMING 'this' here?

then how can anything else be always right?

By consensus WITH and AMONG ALL.

See, what behavior IS Right by ALL IS, ALWAYS, the ONLY 'all right' behavior. Which is then JUST the Right 'thing' to do, ONLY, ANYWAY, and ALWAYS.

[Age]

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.

Saying this relative descriptor is "closer" to absolute than a different relative descriptor, while perhaps true is nonetheless admitting that it is relative. Thanks for that.

OF COURSE 'it' IS.

OBVIOUSLY, EVERY 'thing' HAS TO BE 'relative' TO SOME 'thing'.

Even the Truly Objective VIEWPOINT IS 'relative' to SOME 'thing'.

See, what 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, have been CONTINUALLY FAILING TO SEE and RECOGNIZE is that ALL VIEWS, morality included, ARE 'relative' BUT SOME of 'them' can be BOTH 'objective' AS WELL.

What 'you', posters, here have been SHOWING, VERY CLEARLY, is just how OFTEN 'you' look AT and SEE 'things' FROM a 'this' OR 'that' perspective. Whereas, the Universe, Itself, WORKS DIFFERENTLY, in that although EVERY 'thing' has an 'opposite' the Universe, and the Truth, SIT in 'the equilibrium' of 'the two' seemingly OPPOSING "sides".

In fact ALL of 'your', human being, created 'philosophical' or 'meaningful' QUESTIONS, in the days when this is being written, which 'you' have STILL YET to FIND and SEE the ACTUAL ANSWERS TO, is MAINLY BECAUSE 'you' ARE looking AT 'them', and thus SEEING 'them', as having 'one' OR 'the other' OPPOSING SIDE ANSWER.

Whereas, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER LIES WITHIN, and IS FOUND FROM, BOTH, apparent, "sides". For example, the ANSWERS TO the nature VERSE nurture QUESTION or the creation VERSE evolution QUESTION is NOT IN 'one' NOR 'the other', and NEVER has been. The ANSWERS ARE IN that 'they' BOTH, in both QUESTIONS, EXIST, and more or less EQUALLY.

And, 'this' is UNCOVERED, FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, one is LOOKING FROM the Truly Objective VIEWPOINT, which IS JUST what IS 'relative' TO absolutely EVERY one, as One.

That is; ONLY WHEN absolutely EVERY one IS IN AGREEMENT, then what is being LOOKED AT, can be and IS being SEEN 'Objectively'. But, just to EMPHASIS, is STILL 'relative' TO that one and ONLY One.

Saying it is 97 degrees F outside is objective, saying it's hot outside is subjective.

I AGREE.

I will now ALSO APOLOGIZE for MISREADING what you wrote about 'hot' NOT being an 'absolute descriptor' before, as I READ, and thus INTERPRETED, 'that' Wrongly. I read your 'unlike' word as 'like', instead.

[henry quirk]

I do NOT have to enter ANY 'evidence' NOR even ANY 'proof' to support my accusation of "henry quirk" being BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL here.

Then I can ignore your unfounded accusations.

[Age]

I do NOT have to enter ANY 'evidence' NOR even ANY 'proof' to support my accusation of "henry quirk" being BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL here.

Then I can ignore your unfounded accusations.

The REASON WHY I DID NOT, and STILL DO NOT, HAVE TO 'enter ANY evidence' IS BECAUSE 'you' have ENTERED 'it' ALL "yourself" "henry quirk".

I, REALLY, ONLY HAVE TO POINT 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED TO "henry quirk's" OWN WORDS.

The IRREFUTABLE PROOF LIES WITHIN 'them'.

[henry quirk]

Sumbody wake me when Smeagol ponies up proof or evidence or, well, anything...

[Age]

I do NOT have to enter ANY 'evidence' NOR even ANY 'proof' to support my accusation of "henry quirk" being BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL here.

Then I can ignore your unfounded accusations.

THANK 'you' for PROVIDING ANOTHER GREAT example of what was once called 'cherry picking' and PICKING OUT one sentence ONLY, WITHOUT PROVIDING the WHOLE of what I SAID. 'you' have PROVIDED 'us' with GREAT INSIGHT INTO how one WITH VERY DISTORTED and CLOSED 'thinking' ONLY SEES VERY SPECIFIC 'things' ONLY, while NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE the WHOLE Picture, being SHOWN.

What 'you' DID here "henry quirk", and PROVIDED 'us' WITH IS A PRIME example OF, IS 'confirmation bias' AT PLAY, and thus AT WORK, which can be CLEARLY SEEN is CAUSED by 'your' VERY OWN DISTORTED thinking, and BELIEFS, here.

[henry quirk]

[Age]

Sumbody wake me when Smeagol ponies up proof or evidence or, well, anything...

Wakey, wakey "henry quirk". I have ALREADY PROVIDED the proof.

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' may NOT be UP TO 'that post', YET.

[Age]

PRETENDING TO FALL ASLEEP, so as NOT HAVE TO RESPOND to what HAS BEEN SAID and PROVIDED, was just ANOTHER example of how 'those people' BACK THEN would 'TRY' just about ANY 'thing' to DEFLECT AWAY FROM or IGNORE 'that' what COUNTERED 'their' BELIEF or CLAIM.

'They' REALLY WERE VERY 'devilish' in 'their ways' to 'TRY TO' TRICK, DECEIVE, and FOOL "others".

In Fact 'they' had become SO GOOD AT DECEPTION that 'they' EVEN had "their" OWN 'selves' COMPLETELY FOOLED. As CLEARLY SHOWN and PROVED True, ONCE AGAIN, by this one here known AS "henry quirk".

[henry quirk]

Sumbody wake me when Smeagol ponies up proof or evidence or, well, anything...

Wakey, wakey "henry quirk". *I have ALREADY PROVIDED the proof.

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' may NOT be UP TO 'that post', YET.

*Nope. You've accused & asserted, not proofed or evidenced or anything.

Now, I'm done hi-jacking the thread to fiddle-fart with you. When you actually decide to post citations (in-context quotes of mine that damn me) start a new thread. Title it: Henry's Self-Damnation.

Till then...

[Age]

Sumbody wake me when Smeagol ponies up proof or evidence or, well, anything...

Wakey, wakey "henry quirk". *I have ALREADY PROVIDED the proof.

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' may NOT be UP TO 'that post', YET.

*Nope. You've accused & asserted, not proofed or evidenced or anything.

YES I HAVE.

I DID 'it' AGAIN, above here.

Now, I'm done hi-jacking the thread to fiddle-fart with you.

Well this is QUITE CONVENIENT, FOR 'you', "henry quirk", to DECIDE TO DO 'this', 'now'.

When you actually decide to post citations (in-context quotes of mine that damn me) start a new thread.

But I do NOT have to start a new thread, considering that I have ALREADY DONE 'this' here, above. But, OBVIOUSLY, you MISSED 'it', or just IGNORED, INTENTIONALLY. And, if you did MISS 'it', then I am NOT AT ALL SURPRISED considering just how DEAF, BLIND, and CLOSED you ARE, and ARE SHOWING us here.

Title it: Henry's Self-Damnation.

Till then...

ONCE AGAIN, WHEN the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED 'you', VERY QUICKLY, RUN AWAY, and HIDE, "henry quirk". This time, however, 'you' faux being asleep, which means that 'you' NEVER have to ANSWER to absolutely ANY 'thing', AGAIN.

[Peter Kropotkin]

this thread has completely missed the point in several ways...

for example, doing the right thing is a why question... in other words,
why should we do the right thing? what do we gain from doing the right thing,
and why is doing the right thing so hard to figure out? as I am in the middle of
of several days in a row working, I shall be able to fully work out these ideas
tomorrow.. but I will leave you with a hint.... what is the connection
between doing the right thing and self-interest? what does doing the right
thing has to do with "Eudaimonia?" and what is the goal or point of doing the
"right thing?"

Kropotkin