No, of course not. But that's because words like "good" and "bad," or "right" and "wrong," are not always value judgments. They are sometimes judgments based on mere pragma, or aesthetics, usefulness, or even preference. And when they are used that way, there is no moral connotation intended at all.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:53 am In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?
So to say, "This cheese has gone bad," is obviously not at all to say, "The cheese is immoral." But it's also probably not to say, "This cheese is useful," either. Or to say, "A hammer is the wrong tool to use in fixing iPhones" is not to say "Hammers are morally wrong," or even "You'll be morally wrong if you use a hammer." It just means, "The hammer will not produce the result for which it seems you are doing the operation." That's all.
That's all very simple indeed; there are various uses of those words.
The question is whether there is also a distinct moral connotation to some uses of those words, when moral matters are intended.
So to say, "Abortion is wrong," is not to say, "Abortion is aesthetically displeasing," though it certainly is. It is not to say, "Abortion will not kill the baby," or even "If you're aiming at future happiness, abortion will not be an effective method for getting there," although that also is true. Rather, someone who says, "Abortion is wrong" means, even if you liked looking at it (aesthetics), and even if you decide it's the effective method for getting what you hope for (pragma: not having a child to feed and raise, say, or eliminating unwanted females, in many cultures) or even if you prefer ("choice") to kill the child, it would STILL be wrong, and wrong in a sense more profound and absolute than any contingent goal or preference can ever say.
But not all people concede that such an utterance is even rationally possible. they claim that "moral" is only a misshapen synonym for one of these former things, pragma, aesthetics, preference, utility, whatever), and that the sooner we disabuse ourselves of the illusion that morality means anything, the more realistic we are being.
Such people are rightly called "amoral." And their work on this planet has been generally deplored by those who consider morality a real thing.
But what does "moral" mean, you ask? It means objectively and absolutely the requisite thing to do, especially in the face of things like aesthetics, pragma, preference and utility. Morality is what you SHOULD do, even when you really, really want to do something else. And that is because morality is inextricably linked to telos, meaning the idea that human beings are created entities with a trajectory and purpose they can succeed or fail in achieving. There is an absolute right and wrong way for a human being to live and behave, in other words...and that this way exists (and this is important) even when a person does not happen to know what it is, or even when his society says otherwise.
Morality is not contingent on human beings believing in it, anymore than gravity could not exist until human beings knew it did. It's grounded in the character of the Creator, and exists independently of mankind and their opinions, therefore. However, as you will know, some of us think we know something about it anyway, because we believe the Creator also reveals his character and intentions, and we think we know what He says in that way.
That too, is utterly independent of opinion: in the sense that if it's true, it's true, and if it's not, it's not, regardless of which side thinks they're right.
