Just a quick definition here: When people say moral theory, they mean the procedure(s) they use to generate their terminal values (i.e. the ends you are trying to achieve). Instrumental values (i.e. how to achieve your goals) are much less troublesome.
if moral theories are completely unfalsifiable, then how do we compare them to discover which is better ?
I'm not sure that the consensus here is that all moral theories are unfalsifiable (although I believe that is a fact about moral theories). If theories are unfalsifiable, then comparison from some "objective" position is conceptually problematic (which I expect is why politics is the mind-killer).
And if we can't determine which moral theories are better than others, what's the point in talking about them at all ?
We still make decisions, and I think we are right to say that the decisions are "moral decisions" because they have moral consequences. Thus, one reason to discuss moral theories is to determine [as a descriptive matter] what morality one follows, in some attempt to be internally consistent.
When people say moral theory, they mean the procedure(s) they use to generate their terminal values (i.e. the ends you are trying to achieve).
Understood, thanks.
I'm not sure that the consensus here is that all moral theories are unfalsifiable (although I believe that is a fact about moral theories).
Let's go with what you believe, then, and if the consensus wants to disagree, they can chime in :-)
...Thus, one reason to discuss moral theories is to determine [as a descriptive matter] what morality one follows, in some attempt to be internally consisten
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
If continuing the discussion becomes impractical, that means you win at open threads; a celebratory top-level post on the topic is traditional.