How I understand Palahniuk is that there is no such thing as that morality is relative. Relative to the person, and to the time and place. His premis is that no one sets out to do the wrong thing, and his conclusion is no body does the wrong thing.

Okay, that may logically follow at first impression. But then who determines the right and wrong thing? Is what’s right for determined by what’s best for me? In that case, I would use my sense of reason to determine what’s best for me and hence what’s right for me, and this is where I can begin ranting about humans being rational, with one rationality only (that is, if something contradicts, it is wrong, if something is not wrong, it is right), and since morality depends on our rationality, we all have the same morality.

This is all very secular, no need to use religion to escape responsibility for our moral apprehensions. I certainly don’t need a book of rules to tell me what is right or wrong, and I believe that is the only thing that seperates me from a well-trained dog.

As for your take, or what you wrote after the excerpt.. it is Gramsci who said that every individual has the capability of intellect. I think if we keep a critical conciousness, then we do not need somebody else to show us our contradictions, we can know ourselves what is right and what is wrong. If we don’t use our intellect, then it is like omery15 just said, we need someone to point it out for us.

rebecca, thanks for the comment and you’re right about morality playing its role but palahnuik is connecting “rightness” to action…the actual act itself. when someone kills their brother he is doing it under the assumption that he is right…perhaps justified out of jealousy, anger or heat of the moment. the person makes the conscience decision to act under the assumption that their action is right. but even if deep down they know they’re wrong while committing the act…then they are right about being wrong and the rightness of the act becomes null.

all of this however tends to be in absence of the presence of an ultimate authority that is not human: i.e. God and the infallibility of God manifested in the morality set in holy scripture.

“You can never set off to do the wrong thing.” This sounds like he’s starting to argue that people’s intentions are always good… that people don’t ever consciously decide to do what they know is wrong. A very popular idea these days, but an inacurate portrayal of human nature. One of my earliest memories is my Mom telling me “don’t leave the yard this afternoon” and the first thing I do when she turns her back is take off down the street. (And then lie about it when I get home.)

But it turns out, he’s not trying to argue that people are well intentioned. With his example of drinking coffee out of a dirty boot, he is trying to argue that our own will determines what is right. But conveniently, his example has no moral implications (health implications, perhaps, but no moral implications that I can think of). Imagine replacing “drink coffee from a dirty boot” with “murder my brother.”

â??Even if you were to tell yourself, â??Today Iâ??m going to live the wrong wayâ?¦ I’m going to murder my brother.â?? Even that would be right, because you chose to murder your brother.â?

It’s not nearly as convincing an argument when you put it that way. Something inside us tells us that murdering your brother is “wrong”, even if it’s what you intended to do.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, “Right and wrong come to be with the presence of another”. I would argue that it is “Another” with a capital A. You and I or any other person can state our opinions all day, but one opinion has no more weight than another. Unlike us, though, God (“Another” with a capital A) has the authority to call right “right” and wrong “wrong.” Without God in the picture, human’s philosyfizing is all just as empty and self-contradictory as Mr. Whittier’s.

Anyway, you right [:P], there is no reason to argue with someone if he thinks your right and doesn’t contradict you. It’s like proving to your self that you are correct even though you know it. Nice post to confuse ones self.