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

I thank RR for challenging me to this debate; we had a short discussion in the forums about this topic and I recommended we brought this to a debate, so here we are. I also want to note that my opponent's full resolution is the following: For general purposes, the term "morality" should refer to "the code which dictates how a goal (values) are achieved." This can be seen from our discussion in the forum and from his revision in the comment sections. I'll assume no dissent will arise here. My case will be quite brief, and will take inspiration from this source[1]. Bernard Gert does a great job of outlining a case that I would say creates a definition that is not only intuitive, but accurately fits all, or at least most, ethical theories while being able to contrast itself from other similar "codes" - such as religion, formality, etc. ==================== Why my opponent's normative definition of morality fails ==================== My opponent's definition of morality is too vague and inclusive -- allowing things to be considered moral that are not normally part of the moral discussion. First and foremost, he uses the term "how to achieve a goal" in an ambiguous sense; seemingly almost anything can be considered a goal. It can't be that this is referring to some general rule that tells us how to achieve EVERY goal in life -- no such maxim can exist and at the same time be effective, so then it must be taken to mean to refer to any code. 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). "When people are talking about morality, they are attempting to convince someone to take or not to take an action (and when they are thinking about it, deciding whether to take an action). Advocating something makes no sense if you do not wish to achieve something by it." ----> True, but to define morality thus as a code of conduct that guides behavior is WAY too hasty. To apply your definition, this would mean that a simple command or request would turn into a moral proposition. Actions as trivial as recommending someone how to complete a math problem would be classified as a moral action. My definition will be built to overcome his flaws: ==================== The case for my normative definition of morality ==================== On all accounts of morality, it is a code of conduct and even my opponent agrees. All accounts of morality are capable of guiding behavior, but the problem is that other nonmoral codes of conduct do the same - such as the law, decorum, and religion. I would present a definition as to draw separation among other forms of code of conduct and morality. To fully outline the my definition, it will be the following: "Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal." Now, to explain each part: As a public system, everyone who are subject to morality would know whats kinds of acts are prohibited, suggested, etc. As an informal system, it has no ultimate authoritative judge, though we do we have unique systems (legal frameworks) to facilitate disagreement. There may be inner disagreements, but it all happens under an agreed framework -- in the same way basketball players may argue with referees about a call on a play, though still agree about the framework of basketball rules and regulations. A moral system would govern behavior, whether it be one of the more religious-tied or Kantian ethics in which self-governing behavior is stressed, whereas more secular ethical theories guide our behavior in how it affects others. The final part is a little contentious, 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). ==================== Conclusion ==================== As you can see, my definition is not only much more comprehensive but sensible. Here's a great quote by Gert in his final summation: "The proposed normative definition of "morality" is controversial but it does have some features that should be widely accepted. The definition allows as meaningful the commonly asked question, "Why should I be moral?" It is also compatible with the commonly held view that it is not always irrational to be immoral, however it guarantees that it is never irrational to be moral. This definition also explains why we want others to act morally and why others want us to act morally. It thus does what definitions of referring terms are supposed to do: it clarifies this term's relationship to other terms with which it is related, and helps to explain why we use the word in the way that we do." ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...