Morality is about making the right decision

[LuckyR]

Declaring that killing in general is an objective evil (immoral), but that it is permissible (moral) in certain situations, while internally logical is clunky and inelegant. In my opinion it is more externally logical to use the term "immoral" to describe specific situations which include specific details and nuances as opposed to general classes of actions (such as killing) that require post hoc exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

[bahman]

Declaring that killing in general is an objective evil (immoral), but that it is permissible (moral) in certain situations, while internally logical is clunky and inelegant.

I think that killing is not objectively evil. Living could be good or evil. Killing also could be good or evil.

In my opinion it is more externally logical to use the term "immoral" to describe specific situations which include specific details and nuances as opposed to general classes of actions (such as killing) that require post hoc exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

What do you mean? Could you please elaborate? Sorry, English is not my first language.

[LuckyR]

Declaring that killing in general is an objective evil (immoral), but that it is permissible (moral) in certain situations, while internally logical is clunky and inelegant.

I think that killing is not objectively evil. Living could be good or evil. Killing also could be good or evil.

In my opinion it is more externally logical to use the term "immoral" to describe specific situations which include specific details and nuances as opposed to general classes of actions (such as killing) that require post hoc exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

What do you mean? Could you please elaborate? Sorry, English is not my first language.

We're in agreement about, say killing.

My second comment is addressing those who believe in "moral facts" such as: "killing is immoral".

[Veritas Aequitas]

You misread. When I say that people have all rights in their lives I mean that each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it. Others have no right to his or her life so they cannot tell how she or he should live.

The term 'right' is a very loose term.
I presume your 'right' in this case meant
"the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

In the above sense, I agree with your,
"each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it."
to the extreme they can commit suicide.

However, no human can exists alone [from birth] without support from other humans on a 'team' basis.
All humans are also programmed with an inherent moral sense, i.e. natural within human nature.
In this case, to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] the well-being of the term must be optimized.
This necessitate the optimization of the inherent moral sense.
The inherent moral sense include the oughtnotness to kill humans [born or unborn as potential humans].

If each individual were to exercise their individual right, i.e. perform abortion freely, then theoretically there would be sub-optimization of the team.

Thus the individuals' right cannot dominate the team's right, else there would be sub-optimization.

So, morality is not about making the 'right' decision but rather facilitating and enabling the individual[s] to optimize their moral function potential so as to optimize the team well-being which is critical to optimize the overall well being of the individual within the ongoing spiral to sustain optimization.

[bahman]

Declaring that killing in general is an objective evil (immoral), but that it is permissible (moral) in certain situations, while internally logical is clunky and inelegant.

I think that killing is not objectively evil. Living could be good or evil. Killing also could be good or evil.

In my opinion it is more externally logical to use the term "immoral" to describe specific situations which include specific details and nuances as opposed to general classes of actions (such as killing) that require post hoc exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

What do you mean? Could you please elaborate? Sorry, English is not my first language.

We're in agreement about, say killing.

My second comment is addressing those who believe in "moral facts" such as: "killing is immoral".

Cool.

[bahman]

You misread. When I say that people have all rights in their lives I mean that each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it. Others have no right to his or her life so they cannot tell how she or he should live.

The term 'right' is a very loose term.
I presume your 'right' in this case meant
"the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

In the above sense, I agree with your,
"each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it."
to the extreme they can commit suicide.

So you agree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You misread. When I say that people have all rights in their lives I mean that each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it. Others have no right to his or her life so they cannot tell how she or he should live.

The term 'right' is a very loose term.
I presume your 'right' in this case meant
"the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

In the above sense, I agree with your,
"each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it."
to the extreme they can commit suicide.

So you agree.

in a way,
did you notice.

the 'however' that followed?