(August 23, 2011 at 11:14 am)theVOID Wrote: That's contingent upon what a person means when they say "morality" and there is no rigid definition, just a collection of terms trying to get at roughly the same thing.You would need to help me understand that. Independent of what a person exactly means when they refer to morality, it still would seem to me to be an abstract, at least I have never heard a of a concrete instantiation of morality in the universe. And that is the point for me, without the framework of ethics talk of morality is meaningless as any abstraction needs a framework in which to 'exist'. But existence within a framework is not existence as we know it. Thus I would be forced to conclude that morality doesn't exist. But people and their actions clearly do, and what we at least know through study is that given time, cultures adopt certain values some shared and most not. But again I am not aware of any value that has been consistently shared throughout time/space.
For me the term refers to the conflict/interaction between subjective values and since subjective value does exist and interact then morality necessarily exists.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.