Right and wrong are absolute in the sense that they are the same for everybody. One’s refusal to accept that something is morally wrong (such as murder) does not make it any less wrong when he does it.
It seems to me that the fact that we are debating this subject proves there are no absolute rights and wrongs. There is such a thing as the status quo, the way things are currently done and accepted. Now, almost everyone would agree that murder is wrong (Note: self defence is not murder), but whose to say, maybe in 1000 years our views will change. That’s a scary thing to think about, but what is socially acceptable has obviously changed with time. During WWII Hitler convinced millions of people that Jews were inferior to Aryans. To the Nazis (no, I don’t mean all Germans Nazis) the mass exterminations were justified. The Allies clearly had different views and different moral convictions. Different countries allow their people different freedoms/rights. In many countries there is a similarity between the rights of the people, but no two countries have identical values.
I think a person's values and morals mainly come from religion. For example, take the 10 Commandments. To Christians such as myself these are right and to disobey them is wrong. So this would appear to be a set of absolute morals, but since not everyone in the world accepts these beliefs/standards they are not a universal right and wrong; not everyone would agree with some of the 10 Commandments. An atheist may draw their sense of right and wrong from the people in their surroundings. And it is quite possible for them to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what is wrong.
This brings me to another interesting point. If everyone has a different set of values then why should people be punished for doing wrong in the eyes of others. After all, it was right to them. The answer, I believe, is the Social Contract. Basically we as a people and/or nation give up certain rights to ensure stability and the freedoms of others. You give up your right to go on a murderous rampage (no, I am not saying that everyone has the right to kill whomever they please. It's just an example) in order to maintain security and the general welfare of others. When everyone, for the most part, abides by the Social Contract we are able to better enjoy other freedoms for a greater duration of time.
Many beliefs change with time. People used to believe that the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the universe. So, that beliefs change over time does not show that some of them are not true, nor that they have not always been true.
heh i think this argument has been beatin into the ground about a million times on this board!
I think that what most people mean by saying, for instance, that the right to free speeh is not absolute is that there are exceptions to it. For instance, the famous one about shouting fire falsely (most people forget about that qualification) in a crowded theater. But I think that every citizen of the United States over the age of 18 has an absolute right to vote. So that is an absolute right. No exceptions. Isn’t it?
Actually, it’s perfectably acceptable to falsely shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater provided you do it at a frequency of around 50 kHz or so.
“Acceptable” (whatever that may mean) or not, if it is loud enough to cause panic, it is against the law.
Umm…I think you missed the point.
Look at the frequency of the sound being generated again…
Before I do, tell me, is the point I missed a point?
Well, 50 kHz is beyond the range of frequencies the human ear can pick up.
50kHz or not I would suggest one cover ones mouth with a hand or whatnot if they intend to pull such a stunt:)
Regards,
I guess I did not miss the point. You have none. The term is shout “fire”. You cannot "shout fire at a range of frequency below the range of hearing.
OT: Is this another objectivist slogan? 
No, it’s a statement of fact. And I do not spread “slogans”–a slogan is a symbol of one’s mindlessness.
I play baritone bugle in Southwind Drum & Bugle Corps of Lexington, KY–or at least I did until the discovery of a (treatable) heart problem prevented me from touring and performing this season.
Hmm, do I just detect a slight hint of hypocrisy and self-contradiction on your part?
Anyway, are you a materialist? How can you prove that an action is moral or not if it’s simply atoms interacting?
Right or Wrong
a man moves far away from anyone or anything for that matter
he decides to plant a garden that will support himself
he thinks it would be fun to plant vegetables which are inedible
is this right or wrong ?
certainly not too constructive or bright