"Bad" vs. "evil" vs. Moral absolutism

[padillah]

I figured I'd start a new tread so we don't contaminate the other.

Tom P.

[Nubclear]

No rational person could endorse this move.
Therefore, I move that you are evil

[Saras]

wft, padillah?

[Pekka]

Only idiots believe in good and evil terms of life. They're more like fantasy tales. Nice try though, Jose.

[Nubclear]

wtf pekka?

[Pekka]

I'm suggesting Jose and I should meet, we have a lot to talk about.

Best wishes,

Ed.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc
Denouncing your opponents as contributing nothing is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. For someone apparently concerned about ad hominem attacks....

In retrospect, I appologise. I didn't see anything in your prior post other that implications and calling me silly. As presented here I have points I can address.

Are you asserting there are sane, cogent, lucid people that have valid defenses for killing people and having sex with them?

"Valid" in the sense that they are logically consistent.
Obviously I wouldn't agree with such a person, and I do define someone who radically strays from my moral system as being "insane" or whatnot, but for me to define them all as "insane" and then say that, because of their insanity, their position doesn't really exist (and therefore uphold the absolute truth of my position) is somewhat dishonest.

This is a very good point: are we trying to define a phyilisophical moral purity or are we trying to establish real-world guidelines we can use to further the discussion?

The problem I have with purely philisophical discussions is - there is no end. There is no basis for reality and, therefore, there is no purpose.

If everyone was allowed to define there own sanity, there own "good" and "bad", the people of the world would be in a great deal of trouble. I hope this can be seen as apriori argument against letting everyone decide if they are right or wrong.

It'd be like me saying that, since all right-thinking people everywhere agree with me, you must not be a right-thinking person, and thus your position is not one of merit, and therefore I continue to hold onto the absolute truth in this subject.

And I contend, on a much larger scale, that is exactly what society has done. Where did "curse words" come from? Was there a conventioned we missed? No, society as a whole had enough agreement to espouse certain words were "bad".

Society is the repository for the definition of "right-thinking", not me. Society has imposed that using a bathroom is the only acceptable manner of relieving one's self. My two year old couldn't care less, and society in general frowns on that.

The world population as a whole has put forth the nothion of sex with dead people is gross, not me.

I haven't defined right-thinking.

Okay. Could any "right thinking" person defend Ted Bundy? Are there any circumstances where what you have said could be false?
Or have you defined "right person" in part because they don't defend Ted Bundy (and thus, by definition, a right thinking person could not defend him- there is no circumstance, theoretical or otherwise, where a right thinking person defends him)?

No, you misunderstand. You are saying I am using a moral absolute to define right-thinking. That's not the case. I am asserting that society's definition of right-thinking can be used to define a moral absolute.

I am making assertions to the definition of "evil" as opposed to "bad".

You are trying to demonstrate the existence of moral absolutism as encompassed by the term "evil" by saying that no "right thinking rational cogent lucid person" would ever defend X action, thus X action must be absolutely morally negative (whereas some people would defend Hitler, and thus Hitler is only *relatively* bad)

Exactly. I am using society's definition of right-thinking to help define a moral absolute. I am not placing any strictures on "right-thinking" I am plcing the restriction of right-thinking on the term "evil".

It really is not a stretch of the imagination to see someone adopt a moral philosophy where they consider themselves the only moral agent (since they can only be certain about their own moral existence) and thus their actions upon the "world" then become defined in how those actions affect the person themselves.

No,it's not. I believe it's called sociopathy - the belief that since you are the only person that feels you are the only person that matters.

It really is not a stretch ot the imagination to see someone adopt a similar system where they consider others to "exist" but they simply consider their own pleasure to be valued above everything else.

And this is called Psycopathy. They have been joined into one definition now with gradients between the severities.

Psycopaths are regarded as being bad by society.

If you are just trying to keep from imposing your social mores onto other people keep in mind, we must establish a limit at which society cannot function: both as an entire world and as an individual looking to socialise. How do you declare friendship? How do you decide you do or don't like a given person?

I understand the reluctance to impose a moral absolute on someone you don't even know, but as a society we must enforce these limits for our own well being.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Pekka
Only idiots believe in good and evil terms of life. They're more like fantasy tales. Nice try though, Jose.

This reeks of imposing an "evil" term of life.

Are you honestly suggesting that we wander about hoping others treat us the way we feel we should be?

There should be no laws, simply the basic understanding that you should ask everyone how they wish to be treated.

It would take a lifetime to have a conversation.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Saras
wft, padillah?

I was moving from a different thread so as not to disturb that one and you guys got here too fast.

Tom P.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by padillah

There should be no laws, simply the basic understanding that you should ask everyone how they wish to be treated.

Laws aren't based on what is good or evil. But what is necessary for soceity to function. In Canada, it's legal to club baby seals. Are they evil? Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[Nubclear]

Note that your post is formatted in an awful fashion

In retrospect, I appologise. I didn't see anything in your prior post other that implications and calling me silly.

Its okay - it takes me a while to get semi-serious on Apolyton You should try me on Eventis instead.

This is a very good point: are we trying to define a phyilisophical moral purity or are we trying to establish real-world guidelines we can use to further the discussion?

I was under the impression that this was a morals debate. Otherwise, differentiating "bad" and "evil" seems very trivial.

There is no basis for reality and, therefore, there is no purpose.

There are other arguments that can be used to justify "there is no purpose", but sure

If everyone was allowed to define there own sanity, there own "good" and "bad", the people of the world would be in a great deal of trouble. I hope this can be seen as apriori argument against letting everyone decide if they are right or wrong.

In order for societies to function they do need to impose some moral standards on their populations, sure. And typically, at least here in the West, people choose of their own will to accept those standards (since they have been taught around them for all their lives)
But the analysis ultimately takes place on the individual level - people have to choose whether to accept or reject them and how much this will influence their behaviour.

I'm not saying that people like Ted Bundy or whatnot should be allowed to roam free - I'm simply saying that differentiating "bad" from "evil" by saying that the former is relative and the latter is absolute brings up a lot of problems.

And I contend, on a much larger scale, that is exactly what society has done.

Sure. That doesn't make their evaluation true, because normative evaluations have no truth value.
I'm not saying that society doesn't consider things right and wrong.

Society has imposed that using a bathroom is the only acceptable manner of relieving one's self. My two year old couldn't care less, and society in general frowns on that.

Indeed, and it is up to you to decide whether to accept the values of society and, if not, whether you will act on them.
I hate to use such an emotionally charged example, but the black Civil Rights movement in the United States is an example of this. "Society" has defined some moral standard X that many blacks disagreed with, and they chose to act on their disagreement.

I am asserting that society's definition of right-thinking can be used to define a moral absolute.

Except that (ignoring the obvious issues of moral absolutism) society is not a proper measure by which to declare some moral statement true or false.
In Utah, society here says homosexuality is wrong. By your argument, the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is then true.
But wait! In the Netherlands, society says something different. In their society, the statement is false.

If our logical reasoning is that "Any moral statement society makes is true.", then we see here that homosexuality is both "good" and "bad" at the exact same time - a contradiction.

Thus, there has to be more to a thing being good or bad than simply "society says so".

And this is called Psycopathy.

I believe it's called sociopathy - the belief that since you are the only person that feels you are the only person that matters.

Sure, but again, this doesn't speak to the truth or falsehood of the moral system in question.

If you are just trying to keep from imposing your social mores onto other people keep in mind,

Oh no, not at all. You misunderstand my argument: I'm all for imposing what I think is morally good on everyone. I would never, however, say that my system of morality is "true" and that others are "false" since I consider it a logically absurd thing to say.
Thus, I take issue with the characterisation of "evil" as being "that which is absolutely morally false", since I reject moral absolutism.

The attempted proof in this case for moral absolutism ultimately stems from "truth by democracy" - if a thing is true or false, then it would be true or false regardless of whether everyone considered it such. Just because everyone predominantely thinks X doesn't mean that X is true. If X has a truth value, then X is true or false regardless of popular consensus.

As well, I take issue with the limits you place on the litmus test. "If a rational person can see some moral proposition X, then X is relative. Otherwise, it is absolute." - except that the statement isn't falsifiable, since if I show you a person who sees X, you will simply say they are not rational and therefore they "don't count". It becomes a meaningless test.

Thus I write this post

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with Tacc. Not to go all in the Heroes thread, I think it was said in response to me (by Ozzy) that he doesn't consider evil a relative concept, but good and bad to be ones. I would counter by saying that I do consider evil relative as well. Tacc is the right that you defined it in such a way to suit your purposes.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc
Note that your post is formatted in an awful fashion

Yeah, I didn't realise {/q} wouldn't end a {quote} block.

This is a very good point: are we trying to define a phyilisophical moral purity or are we trying to establish real-world guidelines we can use to further the discussion?

I was under the impression that this was a morals debate. Otherwise, differentiating "bad" and "evil" seems very trivial.

Hm, unless I misunderstand I think I disagree. I see moral debates as trivial brain exercises that accomplish nothing more than proving one person can be more esoteric than the next. (I have a dim view of argument for argument's sake.)

There is no basis for reality and, therefore, there is no purpose.

There are other arguments that can be used to justify "there is no purpose", but sure

I have got to re-read my posts better. I meant "There is no basis in reality..." With no useful ramifications why debate?

If everyone was allowed to define there own sanity, there own "good" and "bad", the people of the world would be in a great deal of trouble. I hope this can be seen as apriori argument against letting everyone decide if they are right or wrong.

In order for societies to function they do need to impose some moral standards on their populations, sure. And typically, at least here in the West, people choose of their own will to accept those standards (since they have been taught around them for all their lives)
But the analysis ultimately takes place on the individual level - people have to choose whether to accept or reject them and how much this will influence their behaviour.

I'm forced to wonder why a persons acceptance of a deffinition should invalidate the deffinition. That puts us back at social anarchy. The bathroom thing was a bad try. Let's try this. (Note, I'm not trying to socially charge my argument. I'm mearly trying to find something around which I can form an absolute pretense. A thing I'm finding increasingly difficult in the face of sopme of your arguments)

Child molestation is evil. That can be asserted without anyone needing to accept it. Reffutation by any number of people would not make this a nice thing to do.

Acceptance is not a requisite for absolutism. If acceptance was required we wouldn't need to enforce.

I'm not saying that people like Ted Bundy or whatnot should be allowed to roam free - I'm simply saying that differentiating "bad" from "evil" by saying that the former is relative and the latter is absolute brings up a lot of problems.

And I'm saying that to continue a discussion a given deffinition needs to be adhered to.

I hate to use such an emotionally charged example, but the black Civil Rights movement in the United States is an example of this. "Society" has defined some moral standard X that many blacks disagreed with, and they chose to act on their disagreement.

Yeah, this one's good. Gimme a sec...Umm....Umm...

I am asserting that society's definition of right-thinking can be used to define a moral absolute.

Except that (ignoring the obvious issues of moral absolutism) society is not a proper measure by which to declare some moral statement true or false.
In Utah, society here says homosexuality is wrong. By your argument, the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is then true.
But wait! In the Netherlands, society says something different. In their society, the statement is false.

I wasn't reffering to a localised society. I'm using the population of the world as a whole. This significantly limits the number of things that can be agreed to be absolute but they are, in fact, there.

Thus, there has to be more to a thing being good or bad than simply "society says so".

Not according to your own argument. If you make any assertion X and I feel like I don't want to adhere to X then you can't say X is right. And if you can't assert that X is right you have no basis for imposing X on me.

And this is called Psycopathy.

I believe it's called sociopathy - the belief that since you are the only person that feels you are the only person that matters.

Sure, but again, this doesn't speak to the truth or falsehood of the moral system in question.

Yes, it should. Those are both mental illnesses. They deny several truths (like "other people do exist") and, as such, can be listed among the "wrong".

If you are just trying to keep from imposing your social mores onto other people keep in mind,

Oh no, not at all. You misunderstand my argument: I'm all for imposing what I think is morally good on everyone. I would never, however, say that my system of morality is "true" and that others are "false" since I consider it a logically absurd thing to say.
Thus, I take issue with the characterisation of "evil" as being "that which is absolutely morally false", since I reject moral absolutism.

Well, at least you are discussing it's prospects so that's something.

So if you can't bring yourself to define your morality as true how can you believe it should be imposed on others? Can you so casually "cast others under your boots" so to speak? I'm hearing "I may be right or I may be wrong. Do it my way anyway."

Without at least the conviction of moral absolutism how can you so casually impose what you admit is a flawed morality on others?

The attempted proof in this case for moral absolutism ultimately stems from "truth by democracy" - if a thing is true or false, then it would be true or false regardless of whether everyone considered it such. Just because everyone predominantely thinks X doesn't mean that X is true. If X has a truth value, then X is true or false regardless of popular consensus.

Fine. This can still be asserted to actions. Or at least to a persons impetus for an action. If that impetus is lacking then that action is evil. To kill simply for the sake of killing, nothing more (no value behind the killing), is evil. That is an absolute that can be asserted as true.

As well, I take issue with the limits you place on the litmus test. "If a rational person can see some moral proposition X, then X is relative. Otherwise, it is absolute." - except that the statement isn't falsifiable, since if I show you a person who sees X, you will simply say they are not rational and therefore they "don't count". It becomes a meaningless test.

Thus I write this post

No, no. The test of a person being rational falls outside of there support of the absolute. That is it's proof. In an abundance of people already proved to be rational, there can exist moral absolutes.

The rational people prove the moral absolute, not the other way.

Tom P.

I still didn't come up with an answer to that Civil rights thing.

[Nubclear]

I see moral debates as trivial brain exercises that accomplish nothing more than proving one person can be more esoteric than the next. (I have a dim view of argument for argument's sake.)

It isn't merely argument for arguments sake. The nature of morality has important implications on whether there is an "objective imperative" to various actions.

I'm forced to wonder why a persons acceptance of a deffinition should invalidate the deffinition.

The definition itself is meaningless. If I define morality as "judgements made about the goodness or badness of a thing" and you define it as a block of cheese....Neither definition is correct or incorrect, they are merely different definitions.
Mine happens to be the one most people assume when discussing things, but we could just as easily endorse your definition and have a discussion about how to cook using morality.

Words themselves don't have meaning beyond the ones we ascribe to them

Child molestation is evil. That can be asserted without anyone needing to accept it.

*Everything* can be asserted without anyone needing to accept it.

Reffutation by any number of people would not make this a nice thing to do.

But what if someone doesn't value children? Doesn't value autonomy or freedom or life or whatever...then to them, the statement "Child molestation is evil" would not be true, and they wouldn't see it as a "mean" thing to do.

Acceptance is not a requisite for absolutism. If acceptance was required we wouldn't need to enforce.

But there is a difference between enforcing something and that thing being true. A government may enforce some viewpoint X ("The sun revolves around the Earth"), but that doesn't make what they are enforcing true.

And I'm saying that to continue a discussion a given deffinition needs to be adhered to.

But the debate we are having is not one of a policy debate: There are no ramifications in that sense. Rather, we are having a morals debate: Can there be relative and absolute morality? Can we differentiate between something that is "bad" and something that is "evil" or not?
I'm saying that defining evil as "absolute moral badness" is absurd because there are no absolute morals, and the logical reasoning used here to attempt to prove that there are does not follow.

This significantly limits the number of things that can be agreed to be absolute but they are, in fact, there.

So what happens when this changes? Let us say that at present the entire world agrees that life is the supreme value and anything that takes away life is then absolutely bad.
But then let us say that a group of anti-life people arises in, say, Germany. They manage to convince German society that life is not the supreme value - autonomy is. If our own autonomy requires us to take a life, then so be it.

Suddenly not all of society is agreeing on this. Does that then mean that life as a supreme value goes from "true" to "relative"?

Societies are too unstable to derive constant moral guidance from them.

Not according to your own argument.

Indeed. In this specific example, I am assuming that there is moral truth, and working from there to disprove your reasoning for why society dispenses this truth.

I don't actually hold that there is moral truth.

If you make any assertion X and I feel like I don't want to adhere to X then you can't say X is right.

That is true. If I say that "We should value the moral goodness of pie" and you say "No we shouldn't.", I cannot say I am "right" in any objective sense and I cannot convince you of my position unless we have some other common value ("Well, you value your own pleasure, right?" "Sure." "Well, if we value the goodness of pie, there will be more pie for everyone." "Oh, then I will value pie.")

you have no basis for imposing X on me.

I have no objective basis for doing this, other than that it actualises my moral system (but this carries the implicit value that actualisation of moral systems is to be valued, etc)

Those are both mental illnesses.

Ad hominem. Any association they may or may not have with mental illness is entirely irrelevant to their truth value.

If a schizophrenic says "My therapist is talking me", it is entirely possible that he is telling the truth. We need to evaluate the claim based on the evidence, not simply who is giving it.

(like "other people do exist")

But let us say that this is an elaborate simulation. You can be sure that you "exist" in some sense because you are aware of your own consciousness, and for that to occur you must have some existence as a moral agent.
But you cannot be sure that *I* exist and that I am a moral agent: For all you know, I could be a computer algorithm that simulates a person debating. You cannot disprove this possibility.

Thus, it may not be true.

how can you believe it should be imposed on others?

Since I say that morality exists outside of logic and reason, to say that I can or cannot impose it on others is yet another arbitrary moral determination that has no truth value.

If my moral system allows for its imposition onto others...that is enough "reason" as it needs.

Can you so casually "cast others under your boots" so to speak?

My moral system includes reservations about doing such a thing, but if I see some guy attacking someone, my moral system has no problem with me imposing my values to correct the situation.

I'm hearing "I may be right or I may be wrong. Do it my way anyway."

Then you are hearing incorrectly. To say that I may or may not be correct is to affirm that morality can have "correctness". What I'm saying is more like: Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Do it my way anyway.

ithout at least the conviction of moral absolutism how can you so casually impose what you admit is a flawed morality on others?

"Flawed morality" comes close to asserting that there is "true and false" (flawed and notflawed) morality, which I deny.
why would I need moral absolutism in order to act?

If that impetus is lacking then that action is evil. To kill simply for the sake of killing, nothing more (no value behind the killing), is evil.

But in order for a person to act, there has to be some sort of motivation to action. Perhaps they value death for its own sake (that is, they make death an intrinsic value)? Perhaps they enjoy the rush, or the sight, or some other component related to murder and determine that this value (that is, their enjoyment) is enough reason to action?
Nobody does a thing that they do not, on some level, want to do.

The test of a person being rational falls outside of there support of the absolute.

So then it is theoretically possible for a rational person to defend Ted Bundy?

I still didn't come up with an answer to that Civil rights thing.

oh.

Let us play a small game on the side. Bring up some moral assertion that you have and then prove to me why it is true - why I should value it and act in accordance with that value.
Examples of moral assertions: We should provide healthcare for the sick, we should treat humans with dignity, we should protect the lives of children, etc.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc

I see moral debates as trivial brain exercises that accomplish nothing more than proving one person can be more esoteric than the next. (I have a dim view of argument for argument's sake.)

It isn't merely argument for arguments sake. The nature of morality has important implications on whether there is an "objective imperative" to various actions.

But without being able to conclude the debate it becomes worthless. With no object to achieve it becomes mearly a discussion, with little or no implication.

Your postulation at the end has a clearer merit.

I'm forced to wonder why a persons acceptance of a deffinition should invalidate the deffinition.

The definition itself is meaningless. If I define morality as "judgements made about the goodness or badness of a thing" and you define it as a block of cheese....Neither definition is correct or incorrect, they are merely different definitions.
Mine happens to be the one most people assume when discussing things, but we could just as easily endorse your definition and have a discussion about how to cook using morality.

Words themselves don't have meaning beyond the ones we ascribe to them

Yes, their definitions. We must, if we are to advance in any given debate, accept the definitions of words. If you define a word as X and I define it as Y then there is little sense in our continuing to converse. We will make little or no sense to each other and the subject will continue to get murky.

Child molestation is evil. That can be asserted without anyone needing to accept it.

*Everything* can be asserted without anyone needing to accept it.

Reffutation by any number of people would not make this a nice thing to do.

But what if someone doesn't value children? Doesn't value autonomy or freedom or life or whatever...then to them, the statement "Child molestation is evil" would not be true, and they wouldn't see it as a "mean" thing to do.

This example is one of the large reasons I don't like phylisophical debates. You can make up any situation you want to support your theory and the opposition must accept it in order to progress.

This is now becoming debate for debates sake. Why must I imagine that there is someone like you propose? Why can't you accept the reality that there is a world outside your window and it must be respected and adhered to.

I can't do this. I cannot find it in myself to reconcile a persons acceptance of child molestation. I'm sorry, I can only view this proposition as flawed in it's conception.

Why not assume that people had three feet? Why not assume we breath nitrogen? Why not assume we all speak Bulgarian?

What use is assuming a postulate that goes against my main argument? How could I possibly make progress by assuming the things I'm postulating as true are false?

I don't understand this function of phylosophy. You have proven to be more esoteric than I.

And I'm saying that to continue a discussion a given deffinition needs to be adhered to.

But the debate we are having is not one of a policy debate: There are no ramifications in that sense. Rather, we are having a morals debate: Can there be relative and absolute morality? Can we differentiate between something that is "bad" and something that is "evil" or not?
I'm saying that defining evil as "absolute moral badness" is absurd because there are no absolute morals, and the logical reasoning used here to attempt to prove that there are does not follow.

Then I'm sorry I've wasted your time. I was trying to support OzzyKP's deffinition of "bad" vs. "evil". I was trying to withdraw the Heros discussion from getting mired in a worthless phylosophical debate about the existentialism of the end of your nose.

Societies are too unstable to derive constant moral guidance from them.

They are, however, all we have at the moment. You may try and substitute religion, in which case you have all kinds of moral absolutes, but it has never really gone over well.

You can try and substitute geneology, but again, this has been tried and not gotten very far.

You can substitute age, sex, race, creed... any of a number of viable alternitives but thus far "truth by democracy" has shown to be the most widly accepted.

Those are both mental illnesses.

Ad hominem. Any association they may or may not have with mental illness is entirely irrelevant to their truth value.

If a schizophrenic says "My therapist is talking me", it is entirely possible that he is telling the truth. We need to evaluate the claim based on the evidence, not simply who is giving it.

Good point.

(like "other people do exist")

But let us say that this is an elaborate simulation. You can be sure that you "exist" in some sense because you are aware of your own consciousness, and for that to occur you must have some existence as a moral agent.
But you cannot be sure that *I* exist and that I am a moral agent: For all you know, I could be a computer algorithm that simulates a person debating. You cannot disprove this possibility.

Thus, it may not be true.

But is it? Then why postulate it? Why cause me to debate a situation you know to be patently false? Why allow me to wander aimlessly through hours of rhetoric if you know the answer to be that you are, in point of fact, a person?

Without at least the conviction of moral absolutism how can you so casually impose what you admit is a flawed morality on others?

"Flawed morality" comes close to asserting that there is "true and false" (flawed and notflawed) morality, which I deny.
why would I need moral absolutism in order to act?

To allow myself, and others participating in my system, the luxory of knowing what the heck is going on. If we have nothing to look to for guidance we are simply wandering about in anarchy?

You mentioned pie earlier, what if that was a very rude swear word to me? You've now offended me. You cannot interface with a person without having, at the very least, a mild grasp of a widely held moral standing. We, the people of the planet earth, must have at least a general set of moral absolutes in order to progress beyond mearly arguing about moral absolutes.

If that impetus is lacking then that action is evil. To kill simply for the sake of killing, nothing more (no value behind the killing), is evil.

But in order for a person to act, there has to be some sort of motivation to action. Perhaps they value death for its own sake (that is, they make death an intrinsic value)? Perhaps they enjoy the rush, or the sight, or some other component related to murder and determine that this value (that is, their enjoyment) is enough reason to action?
Nobody does a thing that they do not, on some level, want to do.

Not so. Lack of impulse control is a sign of psychopathy. No want involved. The person simply does whatever pops into their heads at the time. no desire, no motive, no premeditation... nothing.

The test of a person being rational falls outside of there support of the absolute.

So then it is theoretically possible for a rational person to defend Ted Bundy?

This is a dificult one to answer. On one hand if I say "yes" (in deference to my axiom), then I admit that my argument is flawed.

If I say "no" (in deference to my argument) then my axiom falls.

I will answer this way, it is possible (due to randomness of motion) for all the air molecules to coelesce in the bottom 2 inces of your room. The odds against such are so stagering as to make it an impossibility.

Let us play a small game on the side. Bring up some moral assertion that you have and then prove to me why it is true - why I should value it and act in accordance with that value.
Examples of moral assertions: We should provide healthcare for the sick, we should treat humans with dignity, we should protect the lives of children, etc.

Hmm... I don't think this would be very productive. I have every reason to believe you would adopt ridiculous stances simply out of a desire to not adhere to my postulate.

but at least this has more merit than what we've been doing.

Tom P.