"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

The original argument was, "There are no right or wrong answers in ethics". This dispute is open for interpretation whether it is on a small or large scale. The argument I am consistent with is yes, there is a right and a wrong in ethics in each society. Your retaliation on the Denmark dolphin hunt and applying that to the United States as if we don"t already have laws to protect from this is somewhat misleading due to the fact that yes, it is morally and ethically wrong and yes, is illegal. You go on to say that it would be impossible to create a law that is equal without drawing a line. You are exactly right. The line being black and white between what is ethically right and wrong. So when you say this can"t happen in our society if the west was for dolphin hunting and the east was not, you are simply reiterating the fact that ethically, the west would consider what they"re doing ethically right, and the east would say it was ethically wrong. Cut and clear, black and white. So even though both cultures and societies are different with different belief systems, within their systems there is a right and a wrong. We cannot take two different societies such as The United States and Denmark and say due to the fact that we don"t think alike; we should automatically assume there is a huge grey area in which nothing is definitively right or wrong. I am not arguing of the attempt to make a set of rules that ethically apply to the entire globe, as you have proven in your examples that is simply impossible, different cultures, societies and countries, whichever you may call it all have a right and wrong, all are prosecuted for being wrong and are praised for being right, its black and white with no grey area that renders something morally and ethically right or wrong based on opinion. Lets say you are right, and there is absolutely no right or wrong in ethics. That would mean I could walk out of my house, break down my neighbors door and steal whatever I would like because to me; that is morally right, I want what he or she has and in my head, I should have it because it is not fair that they have whatever it may be and I don"t. This is against the law, a law created because it is ethically wrong to break into someone"s house and take what they have. If you were to take the argument and break it down into smaller pieces, forget about societies and cultures because those two descriptions of a mass of people can be interpreted in different manners. Lets break it down by country. Each civilized country has some sort of judicial system. The judicial system in its simplest form is to simply evaluate what is right, and what is wrong" ethically. Murder; ethically wrong. Stealing; ethically wrong. Rape; ethically wrong. These are ethically wrong in most countries. The countries they are not illegal in; they are ethically right, not ethically so-so depending on whom you are dealing with. I was not trying to portray the fact that because we do not agree with another countries actions make it morally wrong. I was trying to compare and contrast that what they think is right, we think as wrong to each particular geographical area. In Denmark what they are doing is ethically right, plain and simple, there is no line being crossed, whereas to here in the United States it would be ethically wrong, plain and simple. Right and wrong.