Joeanna, MetaEthics, Deontology, teleological ethics, normative, descriptive....all this to explain how they use ethics to form their moral compass. Do you know what a morpheme is? It's the "smallest unit of language which has an independent function" - if you remove any part of a monomorphemic word (such as "study") it loses its meaning. Hence a morpheme differs from a syllable. I spent the best part of a year learning about morphemes: free, bound and derivational. Along with things such as nouns, adverbs, conjunctions and prepositional phrases. All the various terms used to describe language and its structure. Now, I spent the first 18 years of my life in complete ignorance of morphemes. Never heard of them. Did it impact my ability to use language? Not a bit. I spent the best part of a year learning about language, yet I still can't honestly say what the difference between an adverb or an adjective is and my sentence structure often sucks. If I could actually be bothered to change that, if I wanted to improve my writing, then do you know where I'd go? It certainly wouldn't be the grammar textbooks I have sitting unloved on my shelf. I'd sit down with a piece of writing by Orwell, or JK Galbraith, or any other writer whose work I admired. And I'd probably learn more about how to write from them than I learnt in that year of university. There's a vast world of difference from categorisation of something, and the actual practice of it. The reason that studies of language or morality become so complex, so bound up in terminology is that academics need to look busy. Besides, this isn't just limited to agnostics and atheists. have you ever checked out the 'Summa Theologiae'? I like to think of myself as a fairly moral agnostic, but I really have no clue what deontology or teleolgical means. Nor does learning about them seem an overly pressing matter when it comes to developing my morality.

Joeanna, I just wanted a good grasp on how someone who does not believe in God, or Allah or whatever they believe in...forms a moral compass... Probably in the same way that a religious person does. I was always taught that there was right and wrong. While that probably started out as a vaguely religious concept I had no trouble adapting it to an agnostic outlook. I try to be a good person because (a) like everyone I feel compassion for others, and (b) if I don't then it's going to cause trouble. Replace love and punishment by God with love and punishment by your fellow man, and the transition from religious to secular morality is done. Pretty much. I don't believe in any objective moral rules. It's all about how you choose to live your life in the society you inhabit. (Hope the relocation isn't causing you too much trouble by the way. I have enough trouble just organising myself, so having kids in tow must be... a little stressful.)

David, Would you mind expanding a little on the exact difference between "relational" and "relative" ethics? Are you suggesting that ethics should be decided and enforced by the group, rather than left purely down to a matter of individual choice?

"it is different from a totally relativist stance which ultimately argues that any action is pretty much as good as any other." David, There's no such thing, see below for a good definition of moral relativism. "Relativist’s take the pragmatic view that theoretical rhetoric accomplishes very little and that it is the actions that should be evaluated when making decisions. It is in this sense that moral relativists look to concrete examples of behaviour in which to evaluate competing moral beliefs before determining which is of more value."

"For Relational read Relativist, and for Relativist read Skeptic." Matt, No.

Matt, I haven't read it yet but I have printed it out and will read it later tonight. The 'NO' means that I am not willing to use terms interchangeably.

Matt, Outside topic question. Do you know who made that real life Simpson's clip, that I found via your blog?

Huh, interesting exchanges. My original idea was so much simpler. Or at least thats the way I was approaching it, to be more exact. I ofter wonder why it is, that most people find that they have to define every aspect in life to the point of microcosmic realms. It's like complicating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It's great that everyone has an idea about all these differing topics, but I am so struck by all the nonconversational pieces that I miss the casual ponderings of a simple conversation about a topic. My Aunt once related a little 'ta-do' that her and her husband had while ordering a meal at mickey d's. (and said this in such a conversational tone, mind you) and when her husband had gotten his meal at the drive thru window blew a biscuit on the poor woman because his order was wrong. She ( my Aunt) said she admonished him for stating that for an idiot job how could she be so stupid as to screw up a 'friggin' burger. I thought that was good, until she followed it by stating how she reminded him that because they were people of intelligence it was their duty to be tolerant of those of less intelligence. I was flabbergasted. So, I said "Huh, I ofter wonder why it is that those poor stupid people handle stress far better than those claiming to be so much smarter, as to know how stupid it is to flip out over a damn pickle" That being said, I ofter wonder if we spend so much time trying to define how we function into such microscopic segmented bits that we forget it's just a stupid pickle.

I agree with David. Most of my day-to-day actions are fairly intuitive, guided more by basic reason and compassion than detailed philosophical considerations (If I do X, then Y will happen, rather than what is the meaning of Y?). But it's also important to occasionally question what lies beneath the numerous assumptions that guide us. Eventually some of this rather abstract thinking will filter down to my everyday actions, allowing me to make informed decisions. Socrates famously said that the unconsidered life is not worth living. He meant that a life lived without forethought or principle is a life so vulnerable to chance, and so dependent on the choices and actions of others, that it is of little real value to the person living it. He further meant that a life well lived is one which has goals, and integrity, which is chosen and directed by the one who lives it, to the fullest extent possible to a human agent caught in the webs of society and history. As the phrase suggests, the 'considered life' is a life enriched by thinking about things that matter - values, aims, society, the characteristic vicissitudes of the human condition, desiderata both personal and public, the enemies of human flourishing, and the meanings of life. It is not necessary to arrive at polished theories on all these subjects, but it is necessary to give them at least a modicum of thought if one's life is to have some degree of shape and direction. To give thought to these matters is like inspecting a map before a journey. Looking at a map is not the same thing as travelling, but it at least provides orientation, a sense of place and of how places relate to each other - especially those one would like to visit. A person who does not think about life is like a stranger mapless in a foreign land; for one such, lost and without directions, any turning in the road is as good as any other, and if it takes him somewhere worthwhile it will have done so by the merest chance. - AC Grayling ('The Meaning of Things')

A:"Look you're just being an idiot over this!" B:"It's Kant's theory of the categorical imperative!" A: "Fine. Do you want lemonade or cola?" - Conversation overheard second to last time I went bowling. (Okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit... but I swear I did once hear someone use the term in a bowling ally)

The idea of God and the Devil having to argue over the basis of morality is quite amusing. Especially at a bowling ally.