(March 15, 2011 at 4:23 am)lilphil1989 Wrote: But your definiton is not a definition of the word "moral". It's a definition of a particular moral code.
From dictionary.com:
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong
I'm happy to work with this definition if you are.
This is a common definition, but it is too broad to be of use here. I'll try to explain my thinking.
It seems to me that in order to make a moral judgment, (distinguish between right and wrong) I need a moral principle upon which to base that judgment. Likewise with a code of conduct, I need a principle upon which to base those rules. I can't use the definition you sited to describe a "moral" principle, because it is circular. I need a more specific definition as it applies to this particular usage.
My definition is derivative, so you won't find it worded that way in a dictionary, but I think that level of specificity is necessary to define the term "moral principle".
Arguing semantics can be frustrating and often pointless, so let me explain why I find this discussion intriguing. I have always perceived my moral principle intuitively. I was always able to apply it without trying to express it. The thread about moral parsimony got me thinking about why my principle seems to work in all situations, (100% parsimony), while others don't. I'm not saying that mine is right and any other is wrong, but I am asking that question.
I think that our understanding of morality is evolving toward a fundamental principle of right and wrong. One that if universally accepted, (totally unrealistic in the foreseeable future), would allow us all to peacefully co-exist. So I'm curious if others agree that that is the direction we are heading, and if so can we identify that principle? I say yes, and possibly yes, respectively.
