Firstly: Inb4: Tl'dr Inb4: Cool story Bro Inb4: Op cant Inb4 Now we have got that out of the way, give me your thoughts on Meta Ethical discussion on something, lets say for example, abortion. Here's a few link to help you if you get lost: Or you can just have a look at the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics]Wiki[/url] [b]Analytic Ethics.[/b] [spoiler]"The category of analytic ethics, also often referred to as metaethics, is perhaps the most difficult of the three to understand. In fact, some philosophers disagree as to whether or not it should be considered an independent pursuit, arguing that it should instead be included under Normative Ethics. Nevertheless, it is discussed independently often enough that it deserves its own discussion here. Basically, metaethics involves reasoning about the presuppositions behind the moral systems developed under the category of normative ethics. Whenever a moral system is created, it is based upon certain premises about reality, human nature, values, etc. Metaethics is all about questioning the validity of those premises and arguing that perhaps we don't really know what we are talking about after all. The first key aspect of metaethics is one which can also be annoying for many: semantic discussions. In order to understand the nature of morality, it can be very important to better understand how people should and do use key words like good, evil, moral, etc. This isn't the simple issue it might appear. Some have argued that the entire field of ethics has gone wrong because of misunderstandings about how people use moral language. According to one view, called emotivism, the statement "murder is wrong" does not actually express an objective claim about the world. It is, instead, a negative emotional reaction to the act of murder - not entirely unlike a cry of pain. Such an expression might be characterized as appropriate or inappropriate, but it cannot be characterized as either true or false any more than a laugh can be true or false. Thus, when I say "X is immoral," I am not just expressing my emotional reaction to X, but I am also trying to get you to share that reaction with me. The reason why some question whether or not metaethics should it be its own pursuit is because many feel that these questions should already have been discussed and debated as part of the development of the moral system in question. However, philosophers spend enough time discussing these questions independent of any specific moral system that this objection is not as strong as it seems. Analytic ethics asks quite a lot of questions, including: How are moral judgments even possible? Why be moral at all? Do moral values exist objectively or only subjectively? Are moral values relative to something, like culture or individuals? Can morality exist independently of religion? Do people have a free will which would make moral judgments possible?"[/spoiler] The basic idea is this; There is no universal moral, but moral still exist. This is called Meta-ethical relativism. Now, what is right and what is wrong might not be determined by some universal moral, but rather subjective ethics. However, I don't think there's room to argue against the position that for a society as a whole, some types of ethics are more appropriate than others (in the sense that some serve the society as a whole to a larger degree than others) - unless you argue than the diversions in morality in itself helps a society develop. Could you take the role of a supporter of the notion that as a result of some societies developing "better" normative values than others, they become "better" than others with "lesser" values. An example could be; the values that are socialized into indeviduels from birth, e.g. the western individualism compared to the more collective approach in some native tribes. It could technically be possible to change these norms, over time. What I think is that although there does not exist a universal moral, one could create something much like it, if only in smaller communities (like, say, a country) that will benefit society on a whole. What these might be will of course differ depending on whomever you might be speaking to. [i]The question then becomes; in a hypothetical society where some norms are universalized, could they then be called universal?[/i] I myself, am not intirely sure. I understand that this may be just a question of definition, but I'm still rather unsure. The first thought that springs to mind is that if a norm is to be "universal", then there has to be some over-human instance to determine right and/or wrong. The thought does not feel complete though, but I'm unable to point at the wholes in it. It just feels wrong. [b]Anyways, come at me floodians. Show me what you got. Like last time I'll be giving out one[url=http://i44.tinypic.com/23w8rjc.jpg] Destiny poster[/url] in the name of rewarding decent discussion. I'll update if people take an interest. [/b] No, but seriously, anyone can have a go. [spoiler][b]Bewbs[/b][/spoiler]