He who is interested in discussing the real issue rather than just arguing accepts the authors definitions as his definitions and reads his texts with those definitions. Not until then a fruitful discussion can take place.

ihb

Which thesis? As I recall, my original thesis was that your statement, By the standards of a valid system of ethics, however, you're not. said very strong things about what a valid system of ethics can look like. And furthermore said things that many people disagree with.

There is nothing about morality in that, only ethics. My comment about morality was a side issue. If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll note that I never said that ethics and morality are the same thing, only that they are strongly connected. Which they are. As soon as you start asking what is "right" and what is "wrong" you are addressing issues involving both ethics and morality. From morality comes our definitions of right and wrong, and from there comes our decisions about what makes up ethical behaviour.

But quibbling about the exact definitions of the words does not change my point. Which is that your blanket statement about what all valid ethical systems must prescribe is overly broad and not generally accepted.