Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

They proliferate insomuch as meaningful distinctions can be made between them.  Aren't they the contexts in your own "truth in context"?  

Probably not credible to clutch at the pearls about it now.

The categorization thing is your jam, man. There's not much interest in listing bullet points from a wikipedia page. Sure, they're contexts, but certainly not "the" contexts, and they aren't particularly interesting ones.

Now, if you'd like to show how ANY "ism" can arrive at a specific moral position about anything (animals, let's say), then I'm all ears.

My view, predicated on the idea that moral systems (a) are based on emotional positions that are rationalized post facto; (b) depend on imagined alternate realities that cannot be factual, actually allows some clear path forward in analyzing moral questions.

But I'd like you to actually take a stab at any moral position. Is rape wrong? Why? How about abortion? How about killing animals? In what sense can any of these things be taken as wrong, and by what non-arbitrary process are they to be arrived at? Is burning old ladies at the stake wrong? How are you so sure that it is, when thousands or millions were once sure that it wasn't?