Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[instantc]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

For you, as you appear to be a person with conventional morals, yes. There is a small percentage of persons who lack interpersonal empathy or 'conscience' who cannot use this 'if I feel good' as a moral benchmark. What makes them feel good is often victimizing others. Fortunately, many of them end up in prison or mental hospitals (but mostly prison).

Your post seems to me to be inconsistent and misunderstand the essence of morality.

What you are saying is this: If you feel good about doing morally right things, then it is true that 'feeling good' indicates the morality of an act. On the other hand, if someone feels good about doing morally wrong things, then this does not apply to him. It seems to me that you already have a standard of morality, independent of how anyone feels, by which you judge whether someone is 'feeling good' about the right or wrong things. How did you come to determine that standard?

Good old fashioned observation.

I was speaking to Wootah, addressing his particular question, and brought out the exception to the rule, which illustrates why a person can't simply count on 'that felt good' as feedback to indicate a moral action.

The independent standard of morality you are perceiving in my post is the knowledge that there are some humans, about 4% of the general population, that have abnormal reward pathways in their brains, little sensitivity or empathy for a gregarious creature such as a human being is. This small percentage are called sociopathic. What makes them feel 'good' (as I sensed Wootah meant such) is often far from 'good' and therefore can't be trusted as perhaps you and I and Wootah can trust that sense within ourselves.

So what does a moral act entail in your opinion?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 81 by instantc]

So what does a moral act entail in your opinion?

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

That is about as specific as it gets until I'm in a situation. Then, this very very generalized opinion is applied specifically. What I best determine as 'moral' in one situation may not apply very well in others, so it's flexible to a point.


I'm law abiding because I personally agree with most 'laws of the land'. Those I don't particularly agree with, I abide by unless I'm pretty sure I won't get caught, then I ignore them.

When it comes down to taking the life of something that doesn't want it's life taken (ie, if it can run away from you when it realizes you mean it harm), and when it comes to stealing what belongs to someone else -- including subjective things -- I do my best to avoid doing them.

That's my person 'moral' opinion. I consider ethics and morals to have rootedness in our evolution as a species, but these are extremely rudimentary. Even so, they provide a platform to build upon.

I see individual humans and groups of humans developing morals and ethics over time to meet the needs of circumstance. A mix of objective or 'enforced' morals (like laws) and personal, subjectively concluded morals is what we end up with. Children start out being told what to do, and as they mature, they see the reasoning and rationale within their parent's and culture's "do what I tell you to". Adults transcend this more primitive, enforced moral code by internalizing the reasonability and rationale of previously objective/enforced rules.

Some humans lack those rudimentary human 'morals' like sympathy and empathy, and are moral disasters. Fortunately they are rare.

[instantc]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

[Hamsaka]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

[instantc]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

[Hamsaka]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

[instantc]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

Well, if the citizens of a town are suffering because of full buses and metros, then the a decision by the authorities to redesign the public transport system is a decision to alleviate suffering. But, we already established that that has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there must be another element, right?

[Hamsaka]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

Well, if the citizens of a town are suffering because of full buses and metros, then the a decision by the authorities to redesign the public transport system is a decision to alleviate suffering. But, we already established that that has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there must be another element, right?

What I bolded has gotten me stuck.

When you use the term 'morality' in this context, what is your definition? In my mind, when I use the term 'morality', I'm thinking of a human choice to take action to alleviate suffering.

Morality is essentially derived subjectively, though it's 'bones' may be a species-specific concern for the well being of other members. I've had goats, a herd species, who get curious and/or upset when one of their buddies gets injured or ill. That's what I mean (in a nutshell) by instinctive moral structures that are built in. In humans, we've built onto these basics and created pieces of culture.

So as to your question, do I have you right that you are saying "the relief of suffering has nothing to do with morality." I don't agree to that -- provisionally, until you clarify this. Somewhere, I got lost.

And finally, if it isn't morality itself, this response to well being and suffering, what is it?

You got me. No idea.

But like I said, if you could kindly clarify.

[instantc]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

Well, if the citizens of a town are suffering because of full buses and metros, then the a decision by the authorities to redesign the public transport system is a decision to alleviate suffering. But, we already established that that has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there must be another element, right?

What I bolded has gotten me stuck.

When you use the term 'morality' in this context, what is your definition? In my mind, when I use the term 'morality', I'm thinking of a human choice to take action to alleviate suffering.

Hold on now, I thought you agreed with me above when I said that redesigning the public transport system has nothing to do with morality. Sorry, I must have confused something in your reply.

So, according to your definition all sorts of things, such as designing public transport systems and inventing headache pills, are moral actions. That's fine, but I find it a bit absurd and definitely very unusual use of the word 'moral'.

You got me. No idea.

I'm not out to get you. Your initial comment on morality seemed a bit curious to me, so I'm trying to get a grip on your views.

[H.sapiens]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

Well, if the citizens of a town are suffering because of full buses and metros, then the a decision by the authorities to redesign the public transport system is a decision to alleviate suffering. But, we already established that that has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there must be another element, right?

What I bolded has gotten me stuck.

When you use the term 'morality' in this context, what is your definition? In my mind, when I use the term 'morality', I'm thinking of a human choice to take action to alleviate suffering.

Hold on now, I thought you agreed with me above when I said that redesigning the public transport system has nothing to do with morality. Sorry, I must have confused something in your reply.

So, according to your definition all sorts of things, such as designing public transport systems and inventing headache pills, are moral actions. That's fine, but I find it a bit absurd and definitely very unusual use of the word 'moral'.

You got me. No idea.

I'm not out to get you. Your initial comment on morality seemed a bit curious to me, so I'm trying to get a grip on your views.

If you are designing a new public transport system so the the poor folks on one side of town are as well served as the rich folks on the other, is there no a moral component?