> Your terminology is somewhat contrived, not least of all because people view the terms quite differently. Might be because: A) I am not a English native, an

> Your terminology is somewhat contrived, not least of all because people view the terms quite differently. Might be because: A) I am not a English native, and not plugged into any US discourse about the topic B) I studied philosophy and I studied it in Europe, where these definitions might have been used differently. Ethics have never been my focus, so I am not an expert here. On the topic of universality: You rightly say that this is a somewhat illusive goal (as in: reaching a set of rules that everybody has to objectively agree if only they were reasonable). However that was never my claim. I simply said that instead of just inheriting your moral rules from tradition, culture and your ancestors it is superior to try to embed those rules into your own subjective rational framework in order to test those rules under a somewhat consistent "framework". And there are some guiding examples how sich a framework could look (e.g. Kant with his categorical imperative). Imagining universality is a good trick here to give your framework a check: "what if my standards were everybodies standards"? If you hate what comes out as an answer you should probably rethink your own opinions. IMO there are just too many people that hold totally inconsistent views. The key questions is: How can one expect others to bow to ones moral claims, if your views contradict each other or if your moral claims are always strong if they affect the outgroup and waved away if they affect your ingroup or yourself? It is next to impossible to find common ground with such a person, because they are not interested in finding good rules, their interest is to rule. Society is about finding some form of consensus on what is "commonly" acceptable and what isn't, which is why people that don't even try to think in an universal ethical framework are somewhat problematic. Of course not everything needs to be subject to rules, but some rules will reduce conflicts between the different groups and individuals. Now morals are not the same as these rules, because they don't have to be enshrined in law, but the border is fluid here.