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

" First and foremost, he uses the term "how to achieve a goal" in an ambiguous sense; seemingly almost anything can be considered a goal." And? "It can't be that this is referring to some general rule that tells us how to achieve EVERY goal in life" Transportation operates by economic and physical laws ( a set of rules, not a rule), whatever your destination may be. "no such maxim can exist and at the same time be effective," This presumes only one morality can exist. Faulty assumption. :If this is so, then his definition of morality can be applies to the most extraneous conventions. For example, the rulebook of a video game will dictate you in order to achieve a goal (presumely for you to win the game). Correct. Within the context of playing Madden with normal camera settings and controls, assuming one is playing for the purpose of winning, it is immoral to call running plays and press and hold down on the D-Pad from the start to end of every play-- it runs counter to the goal in question. :Actions as trivial as recommending someone how to complete a math problem would be classified as a moral action. There is nothing trivial about the question of how to solve a math problem. If I own a store (which is formed for the purpose, at least proximately, of profit), and I treat the change for a 10 dollar purpose with a 100 dollar bill as 5 pennies, I am destroying the integrity of my store and encouraging all my customers to shop at a more honest competitor. If I am a student in school still deciding on a career to undertake for such purposes and I should happen to intentionally and falsely convince myself of the mathematical premises behind this monetary proposition, I am committing a likewise immoral act. :but the problem is that other nonmoral codes of conduct do the same - such as the law, decorum, and religion. 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. :"Morality is an informal public system There is no such entity as the public :Applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal. Evil and harm presume a preexisting conception of morality. :As a public system, everyone who are subject to morality would know whats kinds of acts are prohibited We already disagree on the nature of the system. This doesn't speak well for our agreement on the acts, and that's just two people. To think it a public system with public knowledge (knowledg which does not differ from individual to individual) you would have to not only ignore the disagreement between you and I, but demonstrate that 6 billion persons all agree. :There may be inner disagreements, but it all happens under an agreed framework The framework we've already disagreed about. :but all it means is that morality has the job of dictating that some acts should be repressed while others should not (or even be encouraged). Repression is already covered by the concept of law, which though with moral import is not synonymous with morality. Morality also has to do with not only "Should this be repressed or not" but "Once that is decided, should I practice it?" :As you can see, my definition is not only much more comprehensive :My opponent's definition of morality is too vague and inclusive To be comprehensive is to include more things. My opponent contradicts himself on which definition is broader. :The definition allows as meaningful the commonly asked question, "Why should I be moral?" Allowing a stolen concept-- questioning whether the source of should should be-- is not an advantage. :It is also compatible with the commonly held view that it is not always irrational to be immoral Why on earth is merely allowing for common views an important consideration? The point of words is to express concepts, not to apologize for how they are arranged. :however it guarantees that it is never irrational to be moral. How does it do that exactly anyway? :This definition also explains why we want others to act morally No it doesn't. Explaining (falsely) that we all agree does not explain why.