Yes yes I know language changes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to be annoyed at a language trend that is damaging the ability to convey or even conceptualize information.
“Prison labor is a form of legalized slavery and that is bad.” 
“That’s just morals. To each their own.” 
The implication of “morals” as a summary of ethical and philosophical discourse tends to lead to such “morals” being dismissed as irrelevant or even irrational because they can’t be measured in a test tube in a laboratory environment (neither can the concept of logical positivism but that one gets a pass).
Less commonly but still in existence is this version that is used by right wingers for a different but still grating purpose.
“The problem with society today is there is not enough morals. That is why bad things happen. There needs to be more morals in the family and in the school.” 
It’s still a crude summary, but one with even less philosophical consistency, that takes the already crude idea of “morals” and turns it into some kind of currency of goodness that is measured between those that ostensibly have a lot of it 
and those that don’t. 
I’m feeling a bit tired, so I hope someone can correct me if I’m completely off base. I don’t think I care much about morals, at least not in the way the term is commonly used today. For instance, isn’t Neoliberal democracy often considered the greatest and most moral system ever created? If that’s the case, and I consider myself in opposition to neoliberal hegemony, does that mean I’m not a ‘good’ person? Does it make me a bad guy, an enemy of freedom, or an evil left-wing extremist simply because I advocate for housing the homeless and feeding the hungry?
I’m not saying I choose to be a ‘bad guy,’ but I’m aware that according to common sentiment, I may be portrayed that way. That’s why, outside of a philosophical discussion, I honestly don’t care much about traditional notions of morality.
deleted by creator
Just using the word ‘morals’ might be oversimplifying things, I guess? Like I agree using the word “morals” can be quite reductionist when discussing complex political and ethical ideologies. It’s a broad term that often oversimplifies the nuanced perspectives people hold.
Then again im a baby when it comes to this stuff so keep that in mind
deleted by creator
you’re just rehashing moral relativism here, which is also what @[email protected] was getting at in terms of finding the concept of moral frameworks, and the use of morality as a substitution for a coherent ideology, insufficient for discourse
deleted by creator
Ok im gonna be 100 with you Im not even sure I understand what moral relativism really means. I just stated that I dont care “much” for the concept of morals because I feel its often used to deny minorities the right of self defense because when black people fight back and its not a toothless protest its amoral. Im not a man of learning but Im open to learn… so feel free to enlighten me if you have anything else to say.
well, that’s basically it - is it morally correct to steal a loaf of bread? what if the baker beats his children? what if without that loaf of bread you will die? etc.
moral relativism at its most basic is just the idea that depending on perspectives and circumstances, what is or is not morally correct will differ. every conversation about “is it wrong to go back in time and kill baby hitler” is an exercise in moral relativism.
the sticky thing about moral relativism is that since both the cop and the protester think they’re acting in a morally correct way, morality becomes kind of a worthless way to talk about injustice and inequality, like you’ve said here. All three of us, you, me, and UlyssesT, are on the same page about this, it’s much clearer to talk about ideologies and class and identity relations than to boil it down into “morality” where it could mean something different to anyone who hears it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator