Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Can;t own your own statements from one post to the next? What a fraud.

Bolded for you to see. Option one (ethical utility) and two (appeal to authority).

Hmm.  To put it in a similar manner I would say it is as follows first I argued:
1.  A person acts according to ethical utility, an argument to numbers, which leads to immoral actions.
2.  A person makes an appeal to authority in order to override the appeal to numbers to engage in immoral actions.
3.  The authority appealed to will not be supported by direct explicit empirical proof and thus may be considered fictional.
4.  Thus, one must appeal to a fictional entity (their person, conscience, schema, or deity) in order to have an authority to override utility.

Then I argued:
1.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is subjective results in a morality based on whims.
2.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is objective (in actuality or proxy) results in morality that overrides whims.
3.  A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.
4.  Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.

---

Normally they are likely to say that.  But if we hold morality of the act is to be determined by the subject at the time of action, their normal view does not matter.  Rather their view under emotional and hormonal override is the determinate of the morality of their conduct.  So do they think that course of action is best/correct/right at that instance?  Likely the answer is yes.

No, I think even at the exact moment of the action, a person does not think that cheating on his wife is moral, or that injecting heroin into the body is moral.  And the reason, imo, is as I said: mores are ideas, and moral failures represent not a temporary alternative idea, but rather a moment in which those ideas aren't accessed or acted on.

You are viewing a person as an indivisible moral agent.  However, a person is a composite of many influences, some of which may supercede or override others.  Mores access a relatively high mental process: the world view.  But more basic processes, like the desire for sex, food, or pleasure, are perfectly capable of hijacking a person's decision-making processes.

Sorry for belaboring this point. What do you mean by hijacking a person's decision making process? It appears you are saying the higher moral ideas are not being accessed or acted upon at that time. Which I am more than willing to accept. Now would we say such for every immoral action? That every immoral action is simply a moment of higher moral ideas being inaccessible to our person?

If so I think we are still in the same boat. As we would say the person's actions are always morally acceptable since they are either acting rightly or they are acting in a diminished capacity and not to be judged as acting wrongly. Thus, every action is moral or amoral and no action is immoral.