Good point, I should have more accurately said that “morality” is just a convenient word to refer to a set of presumably shared reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea. For instance, it offends our sense of justice or sense of empathy, it’d be bad for society to allow it in general, etc.
I don’t see what you mean. I think in order to understand you here I’d have to know how you define “morality” or “morals.”
I’m saying morality appears to be a shorthand for a set of a certain category of reasons to engage or not engage in an action. If we “should” do something, there is an implication of a purpose, i.e., “should do X in order to achieve Y.” Certainly empathy, sense of justice, and “getting right with God” may be worthwhile purposes, possibly mystical in their own right, but the shorthand itself is not mystical: it’s just a definition.
The only thing I’d like us to escape is a definitional conundrum. I think we may be talking past each other. I am simply claiming that words like “rights,” “right and wrong,” “morality,” “deserve,” etc. all imply a purpose (any purpose at all - even a “mystical” or emotion-based one is fine), and that we shouldn’t be surprised if we have to frequently unpack that purpose (meaning, make it explicit) in order to have a meaningful discussion.
I disagree, rights are ascribed to ‘things’ at the point where those ‘things’ are recognised as being moral agents, that possess moral agency. if you are using responsibility in this way, ie.e speaking to their moral agency then you are right. otherwise i think not.
I agree with AJ. Morality is shorthand for good/bad. Swimming in shark-infested waters is not good for you, as you state. For an adventurer or biologist the risk or fun, call it what you will, appears to be good. The degrees or impacts of what is good or bad lead up to rights which these latter are universal in their lawful application of what is good and/or bad for any particular person(s).
In this context, it means whatever the person talking of “rights” intends it to mean. I myself think, for example, that upholding property rights is beneficial for society, because it allows for the free market, which helps everyone get wealthier on average. A communist would support different rights for different immediate purposes that he or she (however wrongly) believes would be good for society (or maybe just because his or her sense of empathy is offended by workers getting laid off, etc.).
But the difference is that I embrace the lack of morality. I embrace emotions. I embrace the moment. So while some try to argue for the morality or immorality of this man, I’m fine with simply saying what is is, and the ears come off tomorrow. [;)]