Rational or Antisocial? For the last few years I've focused solely on my own self-interest without regards to ethics or morality. Though I understand the importance of social restraint and exercise it regularly, it's never for an altruistic reason. The traditional Right/Wrong no longer makes sense to me. I've found that under this mindset, things like war, dystopia and all things negative don't seem to affect me on an emotional level as they normally would. I can rely on my ego to maintain mental stability under all negative situations and can then act in a rational manner to overcome them. And also under this condition, I can comfortably commit "wrong" actions towards other individuals if it results in my gain. Though I do view life as being under a constant struggle to overcome a very indifferent environment, I am glad to be alive with the ability to freely make my own decisions. So I guess what I'm asking is why would most consider this lifestyle/mindset wrong when I can live happily and function in...

Is there any instance where a philosophy of "Do anything unless your maliciously causing harm" could be seen as wrong?

Suppose that Homo erectus would still exist today. Would they deserve the same respect as Homo sapiens? Should we treat them as we treat chimps?

Let's say I like, but don't need, a piece of software. If, after shopping around, I find the lowest price is way, way beyond what I'm willing to pay for it and so I decide not to buy it. Then, I find an opportunity to download it from the internet for free. If I download it and use the software I realise I'll be breaking the law. But, from a moral perspective, how should I be judged? I haven't really deprived the software developer as I wouldn't consider buying at the current price. Nor has the developer lost any material possessions. Nor have I given money to any criminals. Plus, if I commit to buy the software should it ever become what I consider to be "affordable" they won't lose any future income either. Again, how would you judge this behavior from a moral perspective?

If a person hasn't been taught right from wrong, good from bad, acceptable from unacceptable behavior, how responsible are they for their actions when they realize their "mistake"?

It seems to me that with moral dilemmas of Today, in the information age and in a democracy, people try to solve them by some balanced blend of different theories, say utilitarian consequentialism and kantian respect for the individual. For example, Torture and Abortion. It seems your ordinary citizen of today would consider both what is humane and dignifies the individual, but also tries to consider what the consequences are and how they might affect the greater number of people. Now, I'm sure as in every age there is a large group of intellectuals bemoaning the state of intellectual backwardness of Today, but I happen to believe that, as a whole, the average intelligence of society is a lot more than in the past. On that view, the hot button moral dilemmas of today are evolved questions of difficulty - they're morally "harder" than questions in the past. In part, I suppose, because new technology gave rise to new complex possible scenarios. Isn't it likely, given these assumptions then, that...

Is it possible that objective moral truths are out there but have not yet been discovered?

Two questions: (1) When, if ever, could the fact that I commit a wrong against another person make it the case that I have less of a right to feel morally indignant if that same person commits a wrong against me at a later time? (Assume that the wrong that she commits against me is unrelated to the prior wrong I committed against her (e.g. she did not wrong me out of revenge for my wronging her).) (2) More generally, could the fact that I have committed wrongs in the past ever make it the case that I have less of a right to feel morally indignant at the wrongs performed against me by other people generally (not just the victims of my wrongs)?

If we assume that there is no afterlife, what reason do we have to comply with a person's wishes as regards treatment of their corpse? In particular, it is striking to me that we should respect a person's wish not to extract their organs after death; what reason could we possibly have to heed the wishes of someone who no longer exists, especially when the donation of their organs could literally save the lives of several people?

If you are someone who likes to help others, is helping them actually a selfish act that is only done to avoid feelings of guilt that would otherwise occur? Is it really any less selfish than a sadist who hurts others for personal enjoyment, despite the happiness that may be felt in those who are helped?