Using a technical term incorrectly then retorting with “LW jargon.” when corrected is either disingenuous or conceivably severely muddled thinking.
you seem to be trying to argue that Asimov couldn’t have meant “ethical injunction” since he wrote “morality”.
I’m saying that he in fact didn’t mean “ethical injunction” in that context and also that his intended audience would not have believed that he was referring to that.
As for intent I’m guessing Asimov’s (and apparently yours judging by your example) is to interpret “sense of morals” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) disagrees with] and “doing what’s right” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) agrees with].
No, not remotely correct. You may note that the example explicitly mentions to two different values held by the actor and describes a particular way of resolving the conflict.
Using a technical term incorrectly then retorting with “LW jargon.” when corrected is either disingenuous or conceivably severely muddled thinking.
I’m saying that he in fact didn’t mean “ethical injunction” in that context and also that his intended audience would not have believed that he was referring to that.
No, not remotely correct. You may note that the example explicitly mentions to two different values held by the actor and describes a particular way of resolving the conflict.