From what I have gathered, there are two different views.
First, there is objective right and wrong. Of course, how they got here has so many theories. But here is one. Early stages of human life found working together was benficial to their cause. So, they worked together and helped each other. Now, that trait has been passed down generation to generation, not genetically, but socially. Like us calling certain wavelengths in the visible spectrum "red". Its still subjective to its own degree. Obviously, the color could be blue if you were raised that way, but it is a social norm to call it "red". Therefore, that wavelength is now "red" until another social norm takes its place through social evolution(which usually has nothing to do with genetic evolution).
Second theory is that all morals are relative. Killing babies is good. Helping a poor lady across the street is good. All things are equally good and bad. This theory is usually not accepted due to its many "foul areas" like baby killing.
Third theory is that truth is relative, but only if it doesn't harm others. This one is widely accepted(political correctness anyone?), but is easily refuted. It is contradictory because you can't do good to everyone at once. If I give a dollar to a lady, a person might see me as being favoritist, and would cause negative feelings in them. Plus, I'm short a dollar, so I have done bad to myself financially. Therefore, the theory itself contradicts itself.
Really, the only hard theory to refute is the first one. Still haven't figured it out yet. Any thoughts? Who knows, maybe we can start a little debate in a controlled environment to build us up. I love doing that. Not sure if it would be against the rules... Anyone wanna try???
