But if one holds that there is a maxim that one can judge the morality of an action by (like the golden rule or the more self serving raking in of benjamins) it upholds the idea that morality can be judged conclusively. If morality can be judged, then there must be applicable judgements (right or wrong) to apply to it. Therefore the idea that there is no right or wrong is negated if one as a moral agent believes that a maxim can determine right from wrong.
but like I said it depends on your philosophy also i don't want to keep this up all night so yawn ttyl
I agree with what you've been saying. It makes me tihnk a bit of (was it Kant? I can't remember). The idea that if you are all right with the entire population doing your action to you, then you should feel okay with what you're doing. Ie: If you are all right with the entire population sleeping with your fiance, then by all means...
To people who are saying that she's a slut and to people who are saying that he was wrong...we can't really make an objective statement another way unless we were there. I mean...on the one hand:
There's a girl whose made a commitment to a man who is now very far away and has been for a long time. She's obviously feeling very lonley and uncertain right now, and is in a very vulnerable state. If a good friend makes a move on her in this case then the friend is just as to blame.
Alternatively, she is supposed to be committed to this man and if she cannot resist temptation even before tying the knot, is she really in a place to marry this guy?
Then again, we might also look at the fact that we're all human, and people make mistakes and learn from them. One mistake doesn't mean you're eternally damned. If she cheats this once before she gets married, feels guilty and never does it again, is it as bad as if she does it, likes it and continues doing it behind his back?