It has been very enjoyable to post on LW [1, 2] and I have learned a lot from the discussions with other members, for which I am very thankful. But unfortunately, judging by my karma score which is on the same level of Kiwiallegiance and the Jewelry spammer, my opinions are not appreciated and I frequently receive the following message when posting a new comment:
You are trying to submit too fast. try again in xn minutes.
When I press the submit button after x1 + 1 minutes, I'm told to wait another x2 minutes. So commenting has become more and more frustating, and I don't want to continue burden the LW members with the heavy tast of down-voting me. But on the other hand, I still can't find any flaw in my argumentation despite many rebuttals. Maybe I am too ignorant, maybe I am on something. So I'll give myself a last try.
There is none. Some say that morality is a system that is most conductive to cooperation and thus biological fitness. Others say, it is something society creates to enable its own survival. These are explanations that try to reduce morality (values, desires and dislikes) to the concepts of the natural world, but they don't capture what we really mean by desires, dislikes and values.
You might explain my desire for pancakes as a neuronal process, as a mental function biologically evolved, but it does not capture the meaning of "desire". The concept of meaning itself has no meaning in the natural world, but it has a meaning to us, to the rational mind.
As much as we cannot explain what the natural world "really" is, since we cannot see what is behind the physical reality (unless you are an idealistic Platonist), we cannot explain what morality and values "really" are. We can only describe them using scientific theories or normative theories, respectively.
It appears that you think that there is something ineffable about the concepts of morality and values. Your arguments here don't support that position.
You dispute a couple explanations of morality and related terms, apparently because they don't match the way we hold and manipulate these concepts in our minds.
Concepts that we hold in our mind are highly connected to our emotions, memories, and experiences. These thoughts are highly individualized, and thinking them generates recurrent patterns that interact with our mind and body. We can actually "feel" the concept of desire. A devout Buddhist thinks about "desire" in a very different way than a devout Christian.
So it is to be expected that explanations of morality would not capture all aspects of our internal sense of that concept. The explanations probably only capture the elements of morality that were essential to their context of discussion.
This does not show that the concepts of morality and values are ineffable. You have incorrectly compared meaning between incompatible contexts.
Your beliefs about morality appear to stem from your belief about "mental phenomena". As you state it here:
I suggest that this belief incorrectly biases your other beliefs.