Fil Albuquerque wrote:
There is nothing particularly difficult about morality. If there was we wouldn't have any. What we have from it is what it suits us.
Finally said by one who has devoted many paragraphs to explaining its complexity.
Yes. The underlying standards, imperatives, or principles of morality are not difficult. Enlightened self interest, Golden Rule, Cause no harm, etc.
For a moment, apply the principle of "do unto others" to a family situation: Your child needs a simple operation to improve his health. It will be painful, but you allow him to experience the pain for the greater good - a simple application. But, what if the operation may cause the child to lose a limb? Or, suppose there are mortality issues involved? Now the situation is more complex. But the underlying principle has not changed.
So, I'm not sure. But we may be talking about the same thing, except using the words differently. You seem to be defining morality as a process
. I think, perhaps, it is better defined as a set of standards or imperatives. Personally, I view it as absolute.
When we wish to describe the application of the absolute as it applies to a specific community, perhaps the term 'ethos' may be more appropriate, because it allows the kind of muddling that permits child marriage, for example.