Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 193671" data-attributes="member: 1106">Heh - well, indeed, morality is meaningless if you ascribe it with none, or lack a framework to look at it through.It seems to me that morality requires a framework in order to have meaning.  For example, I believe that my theory on a good moral compass has a name called "utilitarianism", whereby that which promotes pleasure and life is good, and that which promotes pain and death is bad.  No doubt I'll be corrected on this definition, but as far as I know that is the gist of it.The devil is in the details though.  Does one's right to pleasure and life outweigh another's right to avoid pain and death?  Do the rights of the individual outweigh the needs of the many?  These are the sort of moral questions that get asked within that simple framework.Given that everyone has a slightly different framework (or completely different one) and perhaps a different take on every moral dilemma, I think that morals are widely agreed upon at best, but because they are subjective can never be absolute.</blockquote>