Evolution of morality

[lilphil1989]

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".

You seem to be missing the point that defining the word moral is not the same as defining a particular moral principle.

To give an analogy (not perfect I realise, but good enough to be useful): defining the word gravity is not the same as defining the force that exists in Newton's theory of gravity.

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.

Your principle only works in terms of your moral code. In terms of mine (anti-green eyes), your principle is an abomination

Asking which moral principle is right and which are wrong is an ill-defined question, because there is no objective way to measure "rightness".

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.

Maybe, it's not too much a stretch to think that at some point in the future, it is possible that all human beings will have agreed on a moral code (if only because one group kills everyone that disagrees with that code).

The particular code that is decided on, however, would not be unique and could only be considered fundamental in the sense of being axiomatic.