1. Morality is about being a good person.
2. We become a good person through doing good actions.
3. So our will must choose to do that good action.
4. We know what is good through our intellect.
5. When something is good it perfects the basics of what makes us human. (that's the philosophical definition).
6. Basically, then, because we want only what is good for us, and that is founded in what it means to be human, there has to be a set of morals.
7. If our human nature changes, morality changes, because morality for anything is based on what it means to be that thing.
8. It can't all just depend on convention because just like physically, there are certain things outside of what we think about them, are good and bad for us to eat. Eating a bowling ball is bad for me, no matter what I think about it. Same thing with morality.
9. For the screwdriver example, if that isn't your definition of screwdriver, what makes a screwdriver a screwdriver?
10. And anyways, according to your argument, since the majority of society decides that murder is wrong, and they should be right, according to your argument shouldn't I be right in saying that the definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws because the majority of society believes it therefore it should be true?
In order:
1. From Wikipedia: "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)."
2. Only because the majority of humans think so. Certain actions are seen as "good" by the majority. So if you do them, you will be seen as "good" by the majority.
3. What if I can afford to not care about what society thinks of me?
4. No, we do not. We are
taught what the majority of humans believe to be "good" by our various seniors, e.g. parents and teachers. They, in turn, are taught by their parents and teachers. You can trace this all the way back to primitive times, and even to their evolutionary roots. Also, remember that morality used to be different in ancient times. Women used to have no rights whatsoever, and it used to be okay to have duels to the death for one's honor.
5. No, it doesn't. It makes those who believe your action to be "good" like you and treat you better. Doing what they think of as "bad" will make them dislike you and treat you worse.
6. I've rejected all of your premises so this conclusion does not hold.
7. Again, morals used to be quite different in ancient times. Yet they were still practiced by humans back then, as far as the human genome is concerned.
8. Not necessarily. Think of extreme cases. What if some sadistic omnipotent deity tells me that I have to eat a bowling ball? If I actually succeed in eating the bowling ball, the deity will restore me to full health and give me superpowers. But if I refuse to eat the bowling ball, the deity will condemn me to a state of eternal suffering. Then it'd be obviously good for me to at least try to eat the bowling ball. True, this scenario is contrived and specifically set up to undermine your argument. But it certainly is not the case that eating a bowling ball is bad, regardless of the context.
9. A screwdriver is whatever you think a screwdriver is. If it disagrees with what I think a screwdriver is, we can argue about it. If either of us succeeds in convincing the other, then the other now thinks differently about what a screwdriver is.
10. Consensus does not make a definition objective or absolute, because consensus is just as malleable as anything else. For example, the consensus used to be that "gay" meant "happy". Now the word instead means homosexual.
1. Sorry. Here is what I am trying to say. What is the thing(s) that you say makes humans humans? If there is a defining characteristic that makes us human, everyone has to share that characteristic to be human. Those parts the nature of a human being.
2. Again, I am defining good by the classical definition in philosophy: the perfection of a thing's nature. So therefore, acts are only good if they perfect our nature, and don't violate it. I think you are using a different definition of good.
3. My definition of a human is a temporal being created in the image and likeness of God with an intellect and a will. But you are probably going to debate this with me. This doesn't really matter here, but do you now agree that humans have a common nature?
In order:
1. I already said that this is a very complicated matter that is difficult to define clearly, hence why I don't believe in the existence of some "human nature". The closest answer would be the human genome, I think.
2. a) "Perfection" implies the existence of some "good". Again, I believe that all such "good" is subjective, decided by consensus at best.
b) If human nature is the human genome, how can it be "perfected"? By improving a human's natural abilities like strength and intelligence? That involves eugenics and biological enhancement, which is a whole other can of worms.
3. I vehemently disagree. I already said that my definition of a human is this pattern of elementary particles that most humans agree to be human. It's a very complicated matter, and we're going by intuition rather than any rigorous science or logic. And I do not trust intuitions.