I don't understand exactly what your saying, it would help if you'd clarify. To start may I ask, are you using the term moral as a noun or an adjective, or if both, how do you differentiate what is a moral and what is moral?
A moral is merely a story aimed at explaining a broad view of what is considered (by the story-teller) right or wrong for a given scenario. It is the encapsulation of what one considers moral.
Otherwise, when we refer to our morals we are referring to the trend of behaviour that our judgements and values tends us toward. If anything our morals might be seen as a prediction of future behaviour given an in exact understanding of the situation.
You seem to be using the term moral (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be a set of rules that one follows, and that the guide one follows is the moral.
I'm saying that the moral is not the guide, but merely a description of the pattern of behaviour that might result from whatever guide that we do follow, and that guide is merely our judgement, our value system, etc, that is specific to each and every case/scenario. What we see as morals is the trend of that behaviour, most especially when that trend is obvious. Almost like they (morals) are the emergent property from the underlying activity... they do not necessarily have downward causation.
Their is the same reality applied to humans and all other things. That reality is dynamic, words are static, and that everyone is limited to their experience when describing reality, doesn't diminish that fact.
Really not sure what you're saying here. Are you advocating that there is no such thing as subjective? That all morals, for example, are objective?
So it's not that you don't like the idea of morality, specifically, as rules, you simply don't like the concept of rules in general.
No, it's not that. There are rules, undeniably so, but I hold that they operate at the fundamental level of the interaction of matter. Anything above that possibly starts to get too complex to be able to assign rules that are meaningful, given the possibly chaotic nature of the output. At best we can have guides, both on a shared societal level but also on a wholly personal level, but those guides are merely predictors rather than rules.
Who would it be best for, and how would it be best for that person(s)?
Best for you, so that you are not dismissed out of hand for perceived arrogance, which would possibly limit readership.
And those former aren't worth reading.
How do you know which is which, though? And why would you not just judge on what is actually written rather than the qualification of effort that went into it.
Did you understand that by higher standard I meant in honest, rather than duplicitous, expression?
One would think that if you're going to extol the virtues of multiple drafts as a demonstration of quality, it would cover such simple things as spelling. A lack of accuracy in grammar and/or spelling might also be seen as a lack of respect for one's readers.
Your the first to notice. I would have edited the word "positive" out of the definition of a neutral rule if I could.
So much for the improved quality of multiple drafts, then.
. Nor will I continue to highlight the spelling errors
you're guilty of.
We are essentially being judged by individuals, so may I ask how that judgment relates to your previous description of an individual judgment. Perhaps here you're speaking of an "objective" judgment, and their a "subjective".
Unless there is a formal rule book against which we are judged (such as the law of society etc) then all judgements, I would contend, are personal and subjective. If two or more people make the same judgement, that does not make the judgement objective but merely makes it a shared subjective judgement. It would be objective only if everyone arrived at the same judgement irrespective of any possible individual perspective.
That our compass is nurtured by our society means that for people within that society they tend to point in fairly much the same way. But we are all unique due to our individual experiences, our individual hardware, our individual ability to process and the means by which we do that.
So society tends to operate and judge on the shared subjective viewpoint of the majority. And acceptance by that society (whether it be a nation, a state, a group of friends) occurs when our own personal judgements are shared, or at least tolerated, by that society.
But I do not consider the compass, the judgements and values, to be objective. And thus the morals that arise from them would be similarly subjective.
I do not discount the notion of objective morality, however, but I have yet to be convinced.
I accept that morals are usually related to the issue of "good or bad", and so I would probably qualify my comments above in that morals can be seen as predictors in our behaviour toward what is perceived as "good". And thus, as you have suggested, some actions can be neutral on the matter.
