Ah, OK, but I think it just delays and confuses. I think one needs to bite the bullet and leave that language. I don't think it makes any sense, as I explained rapidly in my previous post. 'we have decided we don't want...' 'we don't like' IOW one can approach universalist rules and guidelines, perhaps one day and reflect this in the language where it locally applies. The university has decided that we will not tolerate and so on.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑August 19th, 2018, 6:39 amKarpel Tunnel
I take your point. And I've often argued with fellow subjectivists about the post-objective redeemability of moral language.
I suppose my point is that our words mean what we (largely collectively) use them to mean - so that we use 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' to express moral values and judgements that (rightly) matter deeply to us - but that recognising their subjectivity allows us to develop and change their meanings.
I think that if we refuse to acknowledge and talk about what we call moral goodness, we may, at least tacitly, concede something to objectivists. But I fully understand your reservations.
To me the word moral carries with it so strongly that idea that it is NOT a preference merely, but something more and applicable everywhere, that it is confusing and i think even confusing to subjectivists who use it.
I we look at the sentence I was reacting to it included social inequality. Reading that list it would seem like social inequality is something caused by religions, given the context, and something, I guess rational people now realize is no longer justified, freed as we are of the religious ideas. But I don't think that holds. IOW I think you likely have vestiges of objective morals in you - and it would be odd if you didn't given the culture - and it's better to leave the language behind and see how it feels, each of us, when describing things.
We want the power in implicit or explicit use of morals, since it implies objective authority.