Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We need a clear-cut operational definition of wrong.

That being said, there is no such thing as right or wrong because no two people can 100% agree on everything so we have no basis of comparison. What we are left with is "screws /helps others" and "screws/helps me." Pick one of each. Try for "helps me/helps others," but that is rarely an easy option, so choose who to help wisely.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

And what is wrong with this?

There's plenty wrong with Kant's ethics. It doesn't conform to moral intuitions. The exemples given are all directed according to pre-existing conclusions. It is inapplicable in many situations. And it's bloody boring to read.

I Kant deal with this...