That's right I have said no one is wrong or right..or rather everyone is right. I never once said that one should not have to account for their actions. If you have read my posts, one of my examples were me being in a courthouse facing prosecution for killing someone...*smiles*...I said I would still think I was right, but I did -not- say that I should not also be punished for what I had done.
This is a problematic concept, though. Why should anyone suffer punishment for committing acts they consider right? If it is to protect society, then a wrong has been committed. If an entire society believes you did something wrong but you believe you did something right, one of you has to be incorrect in your estimation. You can't have both. Either your punishment is just or else it is not. If we believe that morals don't really exist and that everyone can be right about what is good and bad or right and wrong, then a system of punishment becomes irrelevant. Why punish someone? To teach them a lesson, to keep society out of harm's way. Well, what lesson are you teaching someone with federal prison or even probation/community service if he didn't do anything objectively wrong? What is the point?
Regarding murder - of course there is a correct
moral answer to the question, "when is it okay to kill someone?" It doesn't have to be a simple "never." I don't know the answer, but I could certainly use my moral reasoning to attempt it. But make no mistake - I will be wrong or I will be right. Not some suspended half-right that coexists equally with everyone else's opinions and personal feelings about when it's okay to pull the trigger.
Trieste - I see the temptation of swaying towards cultural relativism (the idea that what is okay for one culture might not be okay for another - it leads beautifully into Hobbes' idea of absolute government sovereignty and presents its own problems, such as the oft-used Holocaust example). The problem is deciding upon action taken. If, for example, we take cultural relativism to heart, we have absolutely no reason to interfere with Darfur. Perhaps you are someone who believes we shouldn't. I happen to believe we should, because what is happening in Darfur is objectively
, morally repugnant. Genocide - whatever the reason for it - is wrong.
As an aside, I am an evolutionary psychology student. There are certainly ways in which we can reduce ethics or morality into explanations of biological programming whose purpose is to keep us alive and well. But changing the language does not change the facts about morality. We evolved into creatures of what Kant calls "moral autonomy." We can reason to correct morality.