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

I thank RR for his fast and concise response. However, typical of RR, it's hard to reorganize all his responses into an order, so in my sections I will respond to his recurring responses -- to reply by quoting his reply is simply too troublesome and probably confusing for the audience and us two. Before I begin, I want to make a very important point clear: my opponent gives no reason as to why his definition should be accepted contrary to mine. Because even if he shows mine to be inadequate, unless he supports his own theory then there is no point. ==================== Why my opponent's normative definition of morality fails ==================== 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. Socrates rightfully pointed out that it was a virtuous definition and thus is something we want to avoid prima facie. My counterexamples of following rules to achieve a goal as being judged in moral dimensions is to show that my opponent's definition is prima facie wrong - he has yet to demonstrate why we should accept his definition. Sure, it can fit the examples given but only in the most peculiar manner. Following the rules in a game to win it is not an instance of morality, but rather an instance of rationality -- 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. Furthermore, you are abusing the analogy in my math problem example. Sure, handling math can be very beneficial and even be brought into moral situations in even conventional moral theories (perhaps solving some intricate math problem to stop a ticking terrorist bomb?). However, I find it intuitively troubling to say that solving a math problem would be a morally praiseworthy moment. 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? This stinks of moral relativism, and I doubt him as an Objectivist would further this position as it is ironically contradictory. ==================== Why my opponent's normative definition of morality fails -- Responding to several quotes ==================== "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]" "There is no such entity as the public" ----> Elaborate. "Evil and harm presume a preexisting conception of morality." ----> All moral systems deem a category of actions as evil/prohibited/immoral, do they not? And all moral systems aim to lessen the presence of such unwanted actions, do they not? "Morality also has to do with not only "Should this be repressed or not" but "Once that is decided, should I practice it?"" ----> Deciding whether or not to do what is moral is an issue for meta-ethics. "To be comprehensive is to include more things. My opponent contradicts himself on which definition is broader." ----> 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. "Allowing a stolen concept-- questioning whether the source of should should be-- is not an advantage." ----> Which would only be valid under your definition of morality...which has yet to be defended. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Not only have I shown my definition of morality to be comprehensive and adequate, but I have yet to hear a defense of my opponent's definition. It may sound silly to debate about what definition we should attach to a word, but for the sake of philosophic discussion (and scientific sometimes) it's very important -- for example, there are concerns about the definition of knowledge and free will in philosophy, with a legitimate discussion still raging. ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...