On Moral Authorities

[Ignorant]

Obviously not what I mean.   You can help someone, and it won;t necessarily lead "the happiest human life", you can harm someone...and it might. [1] As broad as your brush is, it missed me completely. [2]

1) I haven't disputed that. My questions are much more basic, and you might be misinterpreting my responses. You wrote:

If this, simplest of moral systems, leaves you confounded in any way as to what I or they mean

"if you don't know why it's wrong to harm someone, or why it's good to help someone, you do not possess moral agency"

I am not confounded. Quite the contrary. I'm just trying to tease out more implications and implicit meaning.

It is precisely this "why" that I am saying we agree on. Moral agency depends on this "why". Why help and why avoid harm? I'm not asking because I doubt you have an answer. I am asking because I know you have an answer (every human does) and I want to know how you would phrase your own answer. think your answer would help illustrate that we don't actually disagree on some fundamental things. 

Why is it good to help and bad to harm? I am saying that however you choose to answer, you will mean the same thing I mean when I might say, "because that is what it means to live well" or "because in living like that consists a happier living".

2) I think you may just like to be missed. Perhaps you don't like being categorized? You seem to oppose most of the things I post on these forums, so maybe we are just the complete opposite person.