My new definition goes like this:
Morality is a prediction about the consequences of an act.
If you think there's a high risk of negative consequence, then you will view the act as immoral. If you don't think there's a high risk of negative consequence, then you will view the act as moral.
So, consider moral relativism. How does moral relativism play into this definition? It doesn't. Moral relativism disconnects morality from consequence, saying things are right or wrong depending on "personal opinion." This is of course totally wrong because right and wrong are subjective. It's meaningless to say right and wrong are personal opinions if you don't have some objective standard. The standard has always been the consequences of the act. Moral relativism deletes consequence from the equation, thusly:
Morality = ?
Without consequence on the other side, the equation is out of balance and tenuous… without meaning.
Moral relativism has no meaning except to give people permission to do whatever it is that they want to do.
Book Review: Columbia in Manhattanville
1 day ago