The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

Okay, so how many of you now agree with this proposition:"The purpose of math textbooks is to establish morality."?If you take a test and get nine ten questions correct, you are more moral than a classmate who only answered eight correctly? Pro not only agrees with these notions, but assures us that any other interpretation is wild misuse of semantics. How does Pro get to these bizarre conclusions? Pro gets to define "morality" in the challenge. He defines morality: that which is right or goodHe doesn't define "right," so we look that up and find that "right" has two basic meanings.right: 1. righteous or in accordance with is just, good, or proper 2. correct or suitablePro then has a problem with parsing "righteous." He finds one of the definitions to be the original "right" so he concludes the definition is circular and invalid. This circularity is normal. If we look up "feline" we expect "cat" to be a definition, and if we look up "feline" we'll find "cat." The escape is to use the non-circular definition. In our case:righteous: in accordance with moral lawwhere moral law: a general rule of right living; especially : such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason moral law based on man's dignity — Time> [ same dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com...]So when an ordinary people read "The purpose of the Constitution is to establish morality" they will take the meanings that fits the context and interpret it as "The purpose of the Constitution is to establish righteousness according to universal rules of living." That uses the primary definition of each term involved. Pro argues that he never intended to use the common primary meanings of the words, and that he always wanted to argue the interpretation, "The purpose of the Constitution is to establish rules suitable to governing." Had he stated what he meant directly, everyone would have immediately recognized the debate to be an uninteresting waste of time. The fun was entirely in equivocating. Pro claims that we should have detected his meaning from his definition of morality as "right or good," but the equivocation begins by using the second meaning of "right" (suitable or correct) rather than the primary meaning of in accordance with moral law. Equating to good implies morally correct. We wouldn't ordinary use good to mean factually correct or suitable, especially not in the given context. It doesn't work cleanly in most contexts. We are not likely to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is good, while 2 + 2 = 5 is bad, though if the whole context were provided we could decipher the broken English to get the meaning.Now that we understand that Pro always takes "morality" to mean "factually correct or suitable" we can appreciate why the purpose of a mathematics text is to establish morality. The text establishes definitions and proves theorems. Definitions are true. Theorems prove what is true. Math is suitable to practical problem solving as well. Therefore, a math text establishes morality, in the sense of morality meaning "correct or suitable." In the real world, of course, people do not "morality" in that sense, so the startlingly conclusion that math is all about morality is only for code talkers.An unclear resolution can never be proved, so Pro did not meet his burden of proof.I showed that with the obvious meaning of the resolution, it fails. The Constitution was established for practical, not moral, purposes. Pro seems to agree.