If you genuinely follow what your conscience tells you is right, then you have chosen right. But can you not recall choosing to do something which your conscience tells you is wrong? The latter is an example of human free will, when there is no feasible explanation for your action other than it was what you chose to do.
Oh Alan,
Leaving aside the fact that I seem have a totally different concept of how ideas of right and wrong originate in comparison to you, you now seem to have, at the very least, modified your initial statement/assertion (that 'we are aware of what is right') to the idea that your 'conscience' will somehow tell you what is right('your conscience tells you what is right') without actually trying to answer the question I posed.
What you now seem to be suggesting is what is right/wrong is dependent on an individual's conscience, and, hence, morality is no absolute thing at all, for one person's 'conscience' may well differ from another person's.
So, I ask again, how about all those people who choose to do things that they consider right(conscience included), but which don't fit other people's ideas of what is right(conscience included)?
And then, of course, you bring into this the idea that the act of choosing is an example of free will without really bothering to explain the restraints of cause and effect, whereas I see an individual's act of choosing something which he/she thinks is moral/right as a human construct which attempts to deal with all manner of situations which have no intrinsic moral value in themselves. As I see it, The morality we feel is based upon the need for social cohesion, driven by the qualities of empathy, compassion and altruism and and fashioned by culture, nurture and rationality.
With certain reservations, I am much more inclined to follow Ekim's thinking(Post 13646) than yours.
