I was just listening to some lectures on the Nicomachean Ethics last night - good stuff.
Here are my most recent thoughts on this very subject.
We can separate asocial from social action. The former is decidedly less complicated. It’s simply a matter of establishing a) what your ultimate end is and b) what the factually correct means for attaing a) are.
This leads directly to consideration of human nature. If my ultimate end is “happiness” or “satisfaction” in the most general sense (what Aristotle describes as “an end which is never a means to some other end”), then b) becomes a question of what are the conditions that will actually bring about my happiness? In the case of asocial action, right and wrong are simply a matter of choosing the correct means to bring about an individual’s happiness.
Because of the fact of individual variation, we have to understand that there will significant variations from individual to individual for b). This isn’t the same thing as “moral subjectivism” since there are also invariants. I believe the invariants of human happiness are what we can call human nature.
In the case of social action, things become more complex. In fact, I think the vast majority of what we mean by “right” and “wrong” is really concerned with social norms - what are the right or wrong ways to interact with other human beings. But this leaves open the question, right and wrong relative to what? My ultimate end remains the same whether I am interacting with other human beings or with inanimate objects: My own happiness/satisfaction.
In the case of social action, however, the choice of the correct means is more complex and frequently requires negotiation with other human beings. That is, it is always possible that my chosen means and your chosen means can come into conflict. This conflict may not even be the result of my own positive action. Perhaps you whisked away some bread that I was cooking. Do I just allow you to keep the fruits of my labor or do I take issue with you?
Whenever a substantial conflict arises it can become a matter of law. At this point, the full complexity of the meaning of right and wrong becomes inextricably linked with consideration of what is lawful and unlawful.
In contrast to Rothbard et. al. I believe the answer to the question - “what is human nature?” - can only be found using a posteriori methods like those used, for example, in evolutionary psychology. The answer to the question “what is right and wrong” can only be found using a posteriori methods, for example, looking at human beliefs about what sorts of behaviors are taboo or virtuous. These beliefs are not arbitrary, they’re based on the long experience of humanity in repeatedly observing the birth-to-death process of the human life. This is what sociologists ought to be doing instead of propagandizing the State’s latest Zeitgeist. The answer to the question “what is lawful and unlawful” likewise can only be found using a posteriori methods as I describe in my article linked above.
I think where people get into trouble is trying to apply a priori methods to normative issues. There are no armchair answers to the question “what is right and wrong.” The answer to the question is inextricably bound up with the particular conditions of the real world. Hence, it has no a priori answer.
Clayton -