Is there right and wrong? Very often people will think that there is. Very many others will say that right and wrong are merely personal feelings about things. Bertrand Russell once said, "Ethics is the art of recommending to others what they must do to get along with ourselves." The Bible articulates a different view. It appears to give at least one list of prohibited actions introduced by "Thou shalt not..." It surely is not true that both of these orientations can be true. It cannot be true, for example, that "Thou shalt not steal" is true and also true that stealing is merely wrong from the perspective of the guy whose stuff is being stolen.Can one develop arguments about ethics? I do not mean "argue about ethics". People do this all the time, often without any hope of resolution. But, I mean "can we develop arguments whose premises are true and whose conclusions are necessarily true?" This is a question about whether ethics comes under the rules of logic. It would seem that we should be able to do so. Oddly, philosophers have an axiom in ethics. They say that it is impermissible to conclude an "ought" from an "is". It is impermissible to introduce a value into an argument because facts and values have very different logical properties. Facts are either true or false and, so, they can occur in arguments. Values, they say, on the other hand, are neither true nor false and, so, they cannot be used as premises in an argument. This seems odd. However, it is accepted doctrine. But, is the doctrine really true?Can one really use the results of actions as a way to decide whether one ought to have acted one way rather than another? There are many who argue that this is completely legitimate, even a necessary condition. Others deny that results are at all relevant, or perhaps that results are hardly sufficient justifications. What is the property "good"? Is it definable at all? If results are problematic criteria, what alternative do we have for "defining" moral truth, if there is such a thing? Some say, one must do one's duty whether the results bode well or ill for anyone at all. This seems odd as well.What is the relationship of morals to the Law? Does morality exist objectively, independently of the Law? May we know that some laws are just and others are unjust? If we can say this sort of thing, then it seems that morality exists independently of the Law. You may be surprised to discover that many philosophers of Law argue that legal determinations have nothing to do with morality. This is called the Separability Thesis. If morality exists, it is a function of Law. If this is true, then where there is no law there can be no morality. Does this not also seem odd?How does the study of ethics prepare us for thinking about contemporary moral problems like abortion, addiction, capital punishment, animal rights, environmentalism or gay rights, feminism or racism? Can one have anything more than a personal opinion about these matters? Or is it morally wrong to be a bigot? If bigotry is a genuinely moral wrong, then it seems that those who believe that morality is merely a description of how various groups feel about things have to be genuinely wrong in their belief. If, however, they are correct in their belief that bigotry is merely a function of upbringing or personal taste, then we have a significant problem on what to do when there are genuine moral disagreements. We cannot argue or debate because we are not allowed to use values together with facts to arrive at moral conclusions. It seems we are left with "might makes right." Is this okay? Does this not justify terrorism? Is terrorism morally justified? Is it moral to redress grievances through the killing of innocents? We have much work to do!