Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
It sounds to me like you're just saying that moral value judgments are clearly defined within any system of thought that assumes clearly defined moral value judgments. Sure, if you have a definition of "morality" such as that one, there's little room for debate within that definition. But why is that definition of morality any better or more valid than anyone elses' definition of morality? Where did it come from? Didn't someone just make it up because it sounded good to them (the very definition of subjectivity)?
Well, once the concept of morality is thought up, you've got to define it so that it makes sense. You can have a definition of morality as "that which fills the pockets of the rich with more money", which makes sense, but it doesn't make sense as a definition for morality, because nobody thinks of making the rich richer as moral. The concept of morality is about making the world a better place for the creatures capable of having interests -- or at least it is now that we've grown past (hopefully, philosophically speaking) religious ideals.

There are a few definitions of morality, but they all concern how we should behave at their most basic levels. (Except value ethics, which I don't really understand.) Come up with the should that makes the most sense, and it's something like we should behave according to the interests of all creatures capable of interests (I REALLY need a less clunky term there, so I'm going to go with "beings"; I don't know if that's correct but it's what I'm going with). Why? Because it's in all beings' interests! Why is that moral? Because what else could "moral" be? What else makes sense? If morality is about the best possible world, what possible world is better than a world that is good for every being's interests?

Morality is a concept made up by someone. But it's a concept that really only makes sense one way, and that way is not relative.

I keep coming up with almost-metaphors, but none is apt.

I'm arguing that only one definition of morality is coherent, and if we follow it, it leads to very certain, definite places. However, it's very subtle, and often convoluted, so those places are sometimes hard to find, and they'll sometimes go against conventional wisdom and/or our intuitions... much like science. You can call plenty of different things science, but only one conception of what science is really actually makes sense.

Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me.
It was, because I got incredibly lazy, and you're much, much better at this than I am.

And I wanted to make my point to people like Mr Troy, but I can't, because he's repeating the same things at me.

Jesus, Mr Troy, I get that some cultures find certain things to be moral, but what I'm saying is that that conception of morality doesn't make sense; it is flawed, incoherent, or simply meaningless. No matter what orthodox Muslims/Jews/whoevers think about the way they treat their women, it is immoral.