"For general purpose, the term "Morality" should refer to "The code which dictates how a goal (a val

:my opponent gives no reason as to why his definition should be accepted contrary to mine. Did that R1. If I can succeed in rebutting everything you post after that, that means what I posted R1 stands. Whether I do so is for the audience to decide. And I'm sure the contrast in our formats is a good thing :). :First of all, the problem I am saying about his definition being ambiguous is that it's vacuous - it's the same problem that Meno had when attempting to define virtue; consequently, his definition included everyone as being virtuous. If that's a problem you're on about, I can think of someone who is not living up to the definition of morality I've provided. " Someone is in love with their spouse (i.e. has as a goal strict and honest cohappiness with the spouse), a spouse who asks of them monogamy. They commit adultery. Before, during, and after the adultery, they continue to espouse in their own head their love for the spouse, knowing that they aren't living up to it and yet not refraining from the adultery. Why? They let fleeting emotions and such get in the way of the execution. Their resolve was insufficient." See? Problem inapplicable. :Following the rules in a game to win it is not an instance of morality, but rather an instance of rationality Of rationality given what premise? A moral premise. There is nothing in rationality that says one way or another whether you should follow the rules of the game-- unless you have chosen a goal first. Can you show a counterexample to this? What in rationality dictates that someone follow the rules when they are morally apathetic, i.e., have no goals? :it would be irrational for you to disobey the rules and guidelines if your goal is to win the game, there is NO NEED to add unnecessary moral complexities into the equation. The "If your goal" IS the "moral complexity" in the equation, the only one I am speaking of. You already introduced it, and it took you a matter of seconds. Maybe you don't need to, but you sure have a hard time not doing it. "I find it intuitively troubling to say that solving a math problem would be a morally praiseworthy moment." Intuition is non-objective. " Multiple times in his response he states that I am presuming only one morality can exist, and that this is faulty...I implore him to expand on this. Is he really saying that there can be multiple moral standards?" Yes, I am. "This stinks of moral relativism" Depends how you choose to define it. Normally, relativists seem to hold that the truth value of a proposition is non-absolute, which is not what I advocate-- I advocate it's absoluteness within a context. "and I doubt him as an Objectivist would further this position as it is ironically contradictory. " This is a bit of a tangent, but-- "Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. " Ayn Rand-- Philosophy, Who Needs It. Note that this already admits that the Objectivist ethics is inapplicable outside the context of choosing to live. Ayn Rand may personally have been very inconsistent on this front. If you wish to argue my correcting the inconsistency makes me non-Objectivist, that is a matter for another debate, I'm sure Peikoff and friends will thank you for the attempt. If you wish to argue that this is inconsistent with something else I advocate, feel free, but keep in mind that your opponent is Ragnar_Rahl and not Ayn Rand. ""Legislators and religionists would be very annoyed to hear that their propositions are without moral import. I don't pay much attention to decorum but I doubt they differ much on that account." ----> "Insofar a person is legitimately ignorant of what he is morally prohibited or required to do, he is not subject to moral judgment. This is one way in which morality in the normative sense differs from law. Law is not a public system for sometimes "ignorance of the law provides no excuse." Even if a person is legitimately ignorant of what he is legally prohibited or required to do, he may still be subject to legal judgment.[1]" " This doesn't seem to be an argument in response. Whether law is a "public system" (whatever you mean by that) or not, it still derives from a code of action taken for some purpose. " "There is no such entity as the public" ----> Elaborate." How do you elaborate on a negation? Since you are the one seeking to advocate that there is such an entity, and the burden of proof means that the default presumption is that I am correct in negating it, the duty lies on you to elaborate what you mean by it-- normally the term refers to a supposed entity made up of the combined will of all humans in a given geographic area, an entity which does not exist as those wills are incompatible and thus cannot be combine. " "Evil and harm presume a preexisting conception of morality." ----> All moral systems deem a category of actions as evil/prohibited/immoral, do they not?" Incorrect. Some deem such a category evil. Others deem ANOTHER category evil. And they often disagree about just whh and why. But evil, and related terms, still cannot be defined without first naming the system, so this fails to respond to the statement. " ----> Deciding whether or not to do what is moral is an issue for meta-ethics. " Which is-- a moral field. Ethics and morality are effectively synonyms, the attempt to distinguish the terms tends to be practiced by the irrational in order to protect either religious morality or some secular derivative of the charity concepts within it from the subject of philosophy-- i.e., in order to prevent reason from being exercised upon them. I have yet to observe any other reason for such a distinction. "A trivial mess up; what I mean to say is that my definition is comprehensive enough to the point of not including that which is prima facie amoral." What is "Prima facie amoral?" And how unless it already assumes our definition making your argument circular? "Which would only be valid under your definition of morality" http://www.answers.com... Incidentally those of a deontological bent, who inherently must use a different definition as mine is incompatible with their arguments, seem to see the same linguistic relationship with "Should" and morality. I seem to recall your only alternative use of "Should" relying on "Rationality--" but unless you can find a means of making reason say you should or should not do x without reference to a goal you would have to concede the game. "but I have yet to hear a defense of my opponent's definition." Only because you evidently didn't read R1.