What is a right action?

[bahman]

Morality is supposed to resolve a situation when it comes to the right moral decision. Zero killings cannot conduct us in all situations.

It wouldn't be a decision if morality resolved it for you, would it?

You are free to decide whatever you wish (free will), but only the decision which brings about a better outcome is the moral one.

Decisions are either rational or free. Rational decisions are the major type of decision that can resolve a situation if morality is involved provided that you have universal criteria to judge the situation.

[Peter Holmes]

Just catching up on this discussion.

In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong. The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action. And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.

[Skepdick]

In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong. The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action. And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.

Incoherent nonsense.

I assert THAT your name is Peter Holmes.
I assert THAT murder is wrong.

If you insist that only one of the above can be assigned a truth-value, then you are going to have to explain how the assignment of truth-value to assertions works. Who assigns truth-value to assertions and how?

Given that the two sentences have an identical grammatical structure why is the modifier "Peter Holmes" not an opinion if the modifier "wrong" is an opinion?

Please explain without begging the question.

[Skepdick]

Decisions are either rational or free. Rational decisions are the major type of decision that can resolve a situation if morality is involved provided that you have universal criteria to judge the situation.

Decisions are decisions.

First you were trying to categorise them as "moral" and "immoral", now you've invented some new classification schema: rational and free.

Seems you are moving your own goal posts.

[bahman]

Decisions are either rational or free. Rational decisions are the major type of decision that can resolve a situation if morality is involved provided that you have universal criteria to judge the situation.

Decisions are decisions.

First you were trying to categorise them as "moral" and "immoral", now you've invented some new classification schema: rational and free.

Seems you are moving your own goal posts.

Free decisions are not biased whereas rational decisions are.

[Skepdick]

Free decisions are not biased whereas rational decisions are.

Bias is necessary for decisiveness.

Given the choice between A and B, bias towards B means choosing B and not A. Bias towards A means choosing A and not B.

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose A or B.

[bahman]

Free decisions are not biased whereas rational decisions are.

Bias is necessary for decisiveness.

True.

Given the choice between A and B, bias towards B means choosing B and not A. Bias towards A means choosing A and not B.

True.

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose A or B.

Not true.

[Skepdick]

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose A or B.

Not true.

Why not?

Choosing A is bias for A
Choosing B is bias for B.
Not choosing is no bias for A or B.

[bahman]

Just catching up on this discussion.

In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong.

Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.

The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action.

I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.

And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.

Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.

[bahman]

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose A or B.

Not true.

Why not?

Choosing A is bias for A
Choosing B is bias for B.
Not choosing is no bias for A or B.

You have a bias for both A and B but there is a tension in the situation that does not allow you to rationally decide. Can you still decide. Of course yes. You can choose A or B unconditionally, so-called free decision.

[Skepdick]

You have a bias for both A and B but there is a tension in the situation that does not allow you to rationally decide. Can you still decide. Of course yes. You can choose A or B unconditionally, so-called free decision.

The moment you "unconditionally" or "freely" choose you are biased towards whatever your choice.

[Peter Holmes]

Just catching up on this discussion.

In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong.

Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.

The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action.

I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.

And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.

Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.

Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter? Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?

Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.

[Skepdick]

Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter? Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?

Ahhhh, the irony! What exactly makes a matter "indisputable"?

If the "indisputable" is disputed does that make it disputable or indisputable?

Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.

Objectively, there is no such thing as subjectivity.

Your subjective opinions are still objectively your opinions.

You hold them such as they are. Your opinions exist - they are features of reality. Facts.

The moral realists reject the double standards of those who abuse the objective/subjective distinction for their personal agendas.

[Terrapin Station]

There are tons of research on 'animal mind'.
Just google "animal mind research"

So no, apparently you can't give an example.

[Terrapin Station]

Decisions are either rational or free.

I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.