Why not try this: imagine an inquisitive nine-year-old asked you what you meant by “morality”; such a nine-year-old might not know what “define” means, but I expect you wouldn’t refuse to explain morality on those grounds.
I would only have to point to the distinction between Good Things and Naughty Things which all children have drummed into them from a much earlier age. That is what makes the claim not to have an OL undesrtanding of morality so unlikely.
Something is morally right if it fulfils the Correct Theory of Morality. I’m not claiming to have that.
Because of the above, I think you are making a claim that a singular Correct Theory of Morality exists. How would you explain that to a nine-year-old? That’s the discussion we could be having.
I understand English. Please proceed. (I can’t speak for the other participants, but I infer that they understand English as well.)
Some of them claim not to understand some common words. If that stretches to “define” and “mean”. etc, the explanatory effort will be wasted.
Why not try this: imagine an inquisitive nine-year-old asked you what you meant by “morality”; such a nine-year-old might not know what “define” means, but I expect you wouldn’t refuse to explain morality on those grounds.
I would only have to point to the distinction between Good Things and Naughty Things which all children have drummed into them from a much earlier age. That is what makes the claim not to have an OL undesrtanding of morality so unlikely.
Imagine your nine-year-old interlocutor pointing out that not all children have the same Good Things and Naughty Things drummed into them.
So? You seem to think I am arguing for one particular theory.
Because of the above, I think you are making a claim that a singular Correct Theory of Morality exists. How would you explain that to a nine-year-old? That’s the discussion we could be having.
You continue to misrepresent my position.