Sorry, I don’t follow.
You wrote:
Was this a reference to “personal conviction” as you put it or to the powerful in a hierarchy? If it’s the former I don’t understand the point.
Real consequences do not seem to matter to many people. Hence the existence of legal systems to protect us from some of the obvious consequences of such behavioral drivers as greed and anger.
The phrase “intrinsically wrong” was pointing at the idea of moral foundations. Is an act is wrong in itself, independent of anyone’s views about it, or is wrongness simply a matter of perspective. What’s your view?
I feel exhausted after reading this thread.
Is an act harmful (i.e. that causes gratutiously suffering) in itself, independent of anyone’s views about it, or is harm (i.e. gratuitous suffering) simply a matter of perspective? 
Fair. I think I know where I sit on this, but I’m curious about Chelydra’s position.
Why’s that?
Some things feel intrinsically wrong to me. “Supposed to” morality that doesn’t prevent harm. Foundations standing outside human behavior trying to prescribe it. Wrongness claimed independent of anyone experiencing it. Law delegated outside self. “Supposed to” itself.
Both. The former might be the closest we can get to “intrinsicly wrong” as a foundation for morality if it is a last check before person acts.
1 Like
Because you and others have already made the point against the idea in the OP, but it’s just being ignored.
Got ya. 
The “ought” already presupposes a certain norm whose truth cannot be fully verified. Therefore, any rule that would apply to someone else (that is, not to oneself) can be subject to criticism.
However, it is possible to define the “ought” for oneself personally. I prefer to do this in a variety of ways: sometimes using a certain idea of what my future will be and aspirations for it, and sometimes through simple choice without any telos. Thus, the “ought” in my case becomes less a project than a mixture of a project and a choice.