[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I can, for example, understand the "free speech" idea by checking with history how it originated, that it basically means that some government or another organisation controlling some place says that it won't oppress people for speaking freely. Then I can check how it really worked in the past, what people could do, what governments did, etc. Nowhere in that reasoning I have to state that "free speech" is a "right", or worse, an "absolute right". Such things don't exist, don't have basis in reality, but it's surely nice to hear your government telling you you have an absolute right to something by virtue of being alive.
Good commercial.

I have not mentioned anything about "rights" and "absolute rights" in regards to what one is entitled to.(for what of a better way of saying it. eg: the "right" to free speech)

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

......but if you try to have a logical discussion with those words, soon you notice that you can prove or disprove everything ,and you're turning in circles instead of getting conclusions everyone can agree with (possibly with reservations), or at worst, getting a conclusion that something can't be proven, disproved or solved.......

I wasn't talking about "having a logical discussion" and that is not what you stated when you said people should stop using right and wrong as the basis for making decisions.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Well, yes, as much as you consider physics and history information that I arbitrarily think are appropriate and trustworthy. Since nearly everyone who doesn't ignore those disciplines completely agreed with bulk of information in them, differing only in details, I'd say it's a best set of assumptions one can find. I don't think any of this information is "right" or "wrong", only "true" or "false". But you can say I think it's "right" to base my reasoning on this information, and no other.

I'm not questioning whether the information you base your decision making process on is right or wrong.

I'm stating that the mere fact that you believe the decision making process should be based on that information is an assertion by you that this is the "right" way to make decisions. Or the "right" information on which to base decisions.

Ergo, you begin the very decision making process itself with a determination of what you think is "right".

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

2. I 'm not saying no one should make decisions based on incomplete information, or fuzzy, unwieldy representation of information which "right" and "wrong" is.

Oh, ok. I thought when you stated people should not use "right and wrong" to make decisions that is what you meant.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

If someone completely unknown to me attacks my family member, I won't waste time to gather more information, but will jump to the rescue - with hope I'm doing the right thing.

Exactly, you will make a decision based on what you believe to be the "right" thing to do at the time. Which was exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

But when I have time to think, and a desire to write a philosophical essay, I won't employ such hacky reasoning in it.

Use whatever hacky reasoning you feel like. Just admit that when you made the decision you made that decision based on what you believed to be the right thing to do. And at the time the decision was made it was a perfectly acceptable way to make the decision.

Cheers,
PKFFW