Just something i was curious about, what are your views? =]

It would depend on the situation. And even then, the answers may not always be permanent, because things are always changing. What is right today may be wrong tomorrow: like before, they used to include cocaine in Coca-Cola (cocaine was perceived as a medicine then), but now there's zero cocaine in Coke because yes, using drugs is wrong these days.

You also have to take note of other factors: we all know it's wrong to kill, but what if it's in self-defense? What if you do it to save someone else? Stuff like that. So in short, no, I don't believe there's a definite answer. :)

No, Coke did not contain cocaine. The original recipe used Coca leaves, the LEAVES only (used as a stimulant, but by no means anything like 'blow') and Kola nuts. Cocaine is a processed substance obtained from the same leaf but doesn't mean the leaf itself is cocaine.
http://www.gunnerairsoft.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=522

Now for the relevant post.
To say that there is a 'definite' right and wrong would mean that some sort of universally binding force would uphold the consequences right? And there is a said force. Its the laws of physics basically, not as exciting as what you might perceive as moral choices. If you fall off a 50ft cliff, you die, which is right. Trying to cross breed between species is wrong, oh most definitely wrong. If you don't agree then theres something wrong with you, psychologically at least.
As far as moral choices are concerned, right and wrong are in the end decided by YOU, because you are the center of the universe.

Most queries will come down to a value judgment which means that one's morality is the deciding factor. One man's right can thusly be another's wrong. Maths and the like on the other hand can be logically decided however and thusly will have a polar right and a polar wrong in most cases.

Yup, it's a matter of perspective. someone once told me that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". this may sound morally wrong, even to me. but as i said, it's a matter of perspective. someone else also told me that "nothing is absolute in this world". there will always be exceptions here and there.

Hmm... while right and wrong do depend on ones own morals I do belive that it is society and our religion that helps create outlines in which we believe things to be right or wrong.

Wrong is right, depending on the perspective. I like ~omni-slash89's quote, I mean, it describes the world to me nowadays. A saying here says (freely translated, it's supposed to ryme, lol) "Someone's death, is someone else's bread". And it's true.

In the end though, I do have to say that it's wrong if you bother anyone with it, but it almost never is 100% wrong. I guess we'll just have to live with this fact :)

You must consider that apart from being directly related to the person or situation, there seems to be a right and wrong in the universal world as we know it. As renegadecow explained, in physics the rights and wrongs tend to be well defined, but it has it's 'gray areas', example: A black hole.

Right and wrong in human society has differences than the right or wrongs of nature. For instance, killing is viewed wrong in most societies, especially when it comes to killing for a mate/food/etc... yet in nature, these things are 'right' and it happens all the time. So clearly then, by just that example, there cannot be a total right or wrong in the universe.

Additionally, right and wrong also has differences in nature/humans when compared to science or the world around us. For instance, it might be wrong for us to let the 'weak' die off...yet in science, it's considered a 'right' of natural selection, so yeah, again, it shows there's no definite right or wrong.

It really depends what context you're looking at it, what I can say though, is that humans are living by a code of 'right' and 'wrongs' and I'm pretty darn glad we are...otherwise I'd probably have to start beating my neighbour to get some food

If you have to second guess if something is right or wrong then obviously there is no absolute right and wrong then. >_>" Did that even make any sense?

The only thing that determines whether something is right or wrong is a persons set of morals, beliefs and knowledge. To some certain things might be right, and to others the very same thing can be consider to be wrong. Then again it can really depend on the situation such as in the case of true or false questions.

If someone asked you if you stole the cookies from the cookie jar (yeah stupid example >> ) and you did but answered them no you did answer the question wrongly because you did. Now whether or not the act of answering the question wrong (aka lying) is wrong in itself can depend on both your and the asker's set of morals and beliefs.

Well some people (like Aristotle) believe happiness is good in itself, but I agree with a philosopher, Kant, who believed that the good will is the only thing that is good without qualification. (Kant argues that happiness is not good in itself because someone can be happy who does not have a good will and is ultimately undeserving of happiness in the first place). I'm going to quote Kant's explanation as my own would probably be less complete: "A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes--because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone--that is, good in itself. Considered in itself it is to be esteemed beyond comparison as far higher than anything it could ever bring about merely in order to favour some inclination or, if you like, the sum total of inclinations." If someone reasons something through, and acts on this reasoning with a good intentions (i.e. wills good), there is some value through willing good, regardless of the consequences. A good will can produce bad consequences, but if these consequences were unexpected and undesired then it can still be a good will. This only makes sense if you are a nonconsequentialist and not a consequentalists who believes that the consequences of an act are what determine if something is good or bad.

Say whatever you want to say but you all know that my word is

ABSOLUTE!

?

There's nothing good and bad,
Thinking makes it so

duh...i can't remember much abt the quote...>_>

On logic, you can't divide by zero
but yet, it is possible in a certain way to use maths.
So even in terms of maths there is no certain right or wrong on some ends, which is exactly the same with the value of judgment, you choose a side to be arguing with, and the result will end up with what is the right that gives the most benefit and the wrong that does not benefit the many or so on.

Say:
Murderer gets 10 years for killing child.

Right: Murderer should get death sentence, and publicly shamed by his people for doing such a thing, he should be hanged, and asked to pay a huge price to the family affected.

Wrong: The sentence itself was too long, he is able to apply for parole in 3 years, and he may be acquited if the evidence did not wholesomely support his statement, even if he admitted that he has killed the child.

Because of the grey argument you see here, both sides will have their right judgment, and you can't blame them, but supporting factors that guide the side to decide which is right or wrong can be debatable.

@DaPlatypus

Aristotle didn't think that happiness is good, that is an overtly superficial translation of the Greek work "eudaimonia" for lack of better one-to-one English word. What it means is actually something like "flourishing"... something in the direction of the betterment of human lives and core moral values (i.e.. his Golden Mean in Nicomachean ethics).

Both Kantian and Nichomachean ethics are normative ethics, they aren't used to decide what is right and what is wrong, but merely provide a framework for which we apply what has been decided as good and bad. Take for example Kant's categorical imperatives and his universalizable maxims. It tells you to adopt moral maxims in which you think could apply to everyone, but does not tell you what maxims. Same with Aristotle, he emphasized a harmonic mean between two ends of the spectra of an attribute (like bravery, not cowardice or brashness; loyal, not traitorous or overzealous). But where exactly is that Golden Mean? He doesn't tell you, it’s a framework, a guide.

What we need to look at when discussing this issue is meta-ethics, which actually narrows down the scope to only three stands - naturalism, relativism and emotivism.

Naturalism basically says that all whether something is right and wrong can be defined by scientific observation. This theory implies the existence of a scientific base for ethics, in which we could derive certain laws or frameworks governing or describing a certain trend in ethical behavior. With such a base, we could then use “ethical formulas” to calculate how right or how wrong something is.

Relativism, as its name implies, says that the right and wrong of actions are decided by a certain society, and are not miscible with the other. The proponents of this theory however, face a fundamental problem – what are the boundaries of a society? There are no clear definitions, it could be narrowed down to 10-men or even 1000000 people. If so, how many types of “right and wrong” are there?

Emotivism is basically an extension and then a grey area between Naturalism and Relativism. It says that right and wrong is just defined by our emotive responses. If we are horrified by something, then it must certainly be bad. By this theory still does not hold in the face of psychopaths or morally demented people and thus might only apply to individuals. So we could as well have 7 billion “right and wrong”s.