My new definition goes like this: Morality is a prediction about
the consequences of an act. If you think there's a high risk of
negative consequence, then you will view the act as immoral. If
you don't think there's a high risk of negative consequence,
then you will view the act as moral. So, consider moral
relativism. How does moral relativism play into this definition?
It doesn't. Moral relativism disconnects morality from
consequence, saying things are right or wrong depending on
"personal opinion." This is of course totally wrong because
right and wrong are subjective. It's meaningless to say right
and wrong are personal opinions if you don't have some objective
standard. The standard has always been the consequences of the
act. Moral relativism deletes consequence from the equation,
thusly: Morality = ? Without consequence on the other side, the
equation is out of balance and tenuous… without meaning. Moral
relativism has no meaning except to give people permission to do
whatever it is that they want to