good or evil: the same for everyone?

[memimemi]

In re: redefining the word - It's not me who's doing so, if we're to believe The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Where I'm guilty of redefinition, if I am, it's in further distinguishing between morality and ethics than usual - once again, following in progression from (IMO) the last great thinker to seriously discuss Morality (capital intended): Nietzsche. 

Also, it's not just lack of evidence that leads me to dismiss the idea of a universal morality (as a law of nature, or of the human condition); the very concept is subject to the same set of internal inconsistancies that lead many away from the idea of a monolithic G-D sort of entity.  There is also not only a lack of evidence for a universal morality, there is plenty of evidence against such a concept. 

Lack of evidence alone, as you point out, is not evidence of lack.  However, lack of evidence for specific predictions we can make, integral to an idea, *is.*

What predictions can we make, if there were a universal morality?  First of all, the good would flourish (selection pressure would weed out the immoral and the amoral, for not abiding by a universal Truth), and the evil would wither.  Do we see this in the real world?  I posit not.  At best, such a force is a neutral element.

Second, if there is a universal morality, we are not equipped to understand nor define it.  There have been many moral systems throughout humanity's history, plenty of which have/do claime(d) to be an expression of 'The' morality - generally at odds with other systems claiming the exact same thing.  Basically, if there is a universal morality that affects all conceivable conscientious beings, then humans are either i)not moral beings; ii)not conscientious beings; or iii)living contrarily to such a natural force (i.e. 'super'natural beings). 

Third, and related to the first point, you've yet to address the need for enforcement of a moral law, for it to have any sort of meaningful impact on the world, or the creatures living thereon.  This role has universally been filled by a human being, or a set of humans, and applied to the actions of humans.  It seems, at best, unlikely that a universal force would only manifest in one way - and one congruent with a world in which it doesn't exist, at that.

Your second point is valid - in a world without a universal morality.  It puts morality in the same position as the concept of a vaccuum, or the number zero, or the concept of 'Pure Reason.'  A useful tool; a symbol - but not something with an existence value of 1.  Unless you're arguing from a strict Platonic position, one where Ideals somehow have more existance than the [ostensibly flawed] representations of them we see in the real world.

Your critique of the points I've raised thus far are precise and valid; however, it's not the whole of the story.  Perhaps I'm wrong on these, as well - I look forward to your reply.

edit: formatting error.

[OldTrees]

RE: Redefining
1) I compared morals to definition 2 of morality. You threw out definition 2 and compared morals to definition 1. I criticized your substitution.

2) Why would good necessarily flourish in a reality with a universal morality? If you are defining flourish as living the moral life then how can you recognize flourishing without knowing the universal morality? If you are defining flourish by any other standard then you cannot claim it is a necessary consequence of the existence of  universal morality without knowing the universal morality.

3) I used to be optimistic enough to believe that all being capable of making decisions of moral significance would be able to know with certainty the difference between right and wrong. Then I realized I was imposing my own definition of fairness on a concept (moral agency) that was not necessarily fair. It is possible that moral agents exist that would not know with certainty the difference between right and wrong. They merely need the ability to make decisions using logic that can handle moral statements.

4) Why would a universal morality necessarily be enforced? You are confusing judgement with justice. Remember morality describes the moral character of an action/intent/consequence. It does not have a justice system.