There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

It is said that "ethics is just a matter of opinion, nothing more, nothing less". Everyone is entitled to an opinion and that opinion can neither be right or wrong. Basically, your saying that your religion is the right one and others are the wrong ones. When it comes to philosophy, ethics/morality, religion usually does not play a role becuase of the fact that there are so many and everyone has there own beliefs. This isn't about religion, its about ethics. Morality, ethics, and philosophy all tie in together. Philosophy especially, has no logic or feelings involved, just think, no facts, just opinions. Furthermore, opinions are neither right or wrong, making ethics the same way. The murder case and the sickness were just examples to support my arguement, it does not necessarily have to happen together all the time. Also, do not assume that a country that has laws has freedom, when in fact it is the opposite. If we had no laws, everyone would be free to do whatever they please. We have laws, but yet some people feel that America being known as the land of the free is BS. Assumption is the mistake that people make mostly, when it comes to morals. They assume that just because they are so stubborn in their beliefs, that their ways are always the right ways. For example, men in other countries marry more than one woman, but here in the U.S, we do not practice polygamy as much. Does that mean the what their doing is wrong? No, because it's in their culture, it's what they were taught to do, and what they know. When it comes to laws, we were taught that they are there to protect us and that they are there for a good cause. But, do you honestly think all laws are there for your own good? Given certain circumstances, there is no right or wrong. I never said that that could be a pass for everyone. If you cannot recognize a wrong, then how can you recognize a right? Some people are not able to do that, which is why we cannot all just ASSUME that there are right or wrong answers in ethics. I've read in an Ethical Relativism article an example that would best support my argument. "Suppose we were required to determine who was at fault in an automobile accident. The accident occurred between two cars, one red, one green, driven by fellow students. There were many witnesses to the accident. To make our determination, we interviewed the witnesses. Some gave "eyewitness" reports that the Red car was at fault. Others disagreed and said that the Green car was to blame. The reports obviously conflict. But, does it follow from the fact that the reports conflict that there is not someone who is really at fault, or that there is no way to determine which person was at fault? Of course not. What is the situation? It is a fact that there was an accident. It is a fact that people disagree as to what happened. It is a fact that it may be difficult if not practically impossible to determine what actually happened. But, it does not follow from these facts that there is no objective truth about the accident or that the truth is impossible to find. What follows from the facts is what the facts state: an accident happened; people disagree about what happened; and it will be difficult to determine what actually happened. However, as hard as it may be, it is possible to determine what happened. And, that is all that we need to refute the relativist. He has claimed that it is impossible to determine what is right or wrong given the way the world is. What we have determined is that it is not impossible, though it may be extremely difficult. The cultural relativist's position is too strong. To claim that there is no objective truth to ethical judgments is tantamount to claiming that it is impossible that there be objective truth about ethical judgments. That would be like saying that there was no objective truth about the accident. Of course there is; it is simply a fact that the truth is very hard to get to".