morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Edwardo Piet]

So you think suffering because you're working out or doing homework is still wrong, just not AS wrong as not doing those things?

Oh, I see what you mean.

I should be more specific. When taking action the right action is the option that produces the least suffering of all available options.

But, sure.... we could say that 'thoset hings are wrong but not as wrong as not doing them'.... but that's just a matter of semantics. It is indeed a little weird... hence my correction in the above line. But either way the ontology is the same. The only difference there is semantics.

Also, the fact that I'd be stealing to buy cigarettes wasn't the point lol. Fine, let's say I stole $10 from a rich person to buy myself a pretty necklace.

And they didn't know about it?

I'd say that's not necessarily wrong in all cases if the person stealing the necklace was omniscient and GENUINELY ABSOLUTELY KNEW that the rich person would never know the money was missing and never be hurt by it.

But.... that's in principle and in theory. In general the moral is: Stealing from people is almost always going to cause people harm and we're imperfect beings who aren't smart enough to figure out the weird exceptions when it won't (except, perhaps, times like when a homeless family is starving to death and they need to steal bread from a rich and greedy Sultan or something.... I think we can realistically see that's reasonable).... it's all about the difference between the principles and theory of the matter and the practicle and realtiy of it.

In reality, rules and virtues are what it's all about.

My view is the whole REASON you think there are absolute rules to follow is because 99.999999999999999% of the time they produce the best moral consequences.


 

Your argument that suffering = wrongness isn't getting any better.

I disagree. I think the refinements to my arguments are only making it clearer.