If you had paid attention this is NOT my argument.
Oh...it's not? That's funny, I recall reading the following.
The reason an moral lie is wrong is because it is an oxymoron....just like peacekeeper missile, just like free trade, just like peace force...these are all examples of our skewed way of thinking about morality.
I'll break it down for you, since it's appartent you don't even understand what you yourself say. You're saying that the reason why a lie cannot be a morally good act is because 'lie' and 'morally good act' are incompatible notions; hence, you call it an oxymoron. It follows from this that a lie is across-the-board wrong. I simply generalized this to all moral acts, as that is your position and why you think that a morally good lie is an oxymoron. It's really tiresome to discuss things with someone who can't understand my clearly stated argument nor his own words. You think at about a 4th grade level.
I don't believe all moral acts are across-the-board right or wrong.
So which ones are and which ones aren't? How do you decide? Why would you think you get to decide which ones are and which ones aren't? If something informs you of which ones are and which ones aren't, then what's informing you? Tell us so we can check for this magical quality in all moral acts. You have no clue what you're claiming anymore.
I believe that some are in a single context. A starting point, if you will. There are shared intuitive moral judgments.
This makes no sense. Gibberish.
In the end, the most compelling moral judgments we share are intuitive ones (which is not to say there‘s nothing but our intuitions speaking for them). So compelling are some that they are not susceptible to being undermined, nor should they be. They are grounded in common sense, our sense of fairness (or justice), and are a product of our humanity.
If you are correct here then it would stand to reason that these shared moral judgments would be across the board right or wrong or they could not be shared. That is what shared means....we either share a moral or we don't....there is no inbetween.
Yes, but my use of 'moral judgments' is of particular cases of moral acts, not abstracted acts like you talk about. I don't say 'lying is wrong' is a shared moral judgment. I say, 'lying under these circumstances' is wrong. You fail to understand this, which is quite preposterous after I've explained it to you countless times now. Your reading comprehension is sad. This, then, leads you to say this:
Now....let's try to come to a agreement about certain words that can be "shared" by mankind as far as making "shared moral judgments."
Uhm, no! This is what I've spent a lot of time explaining to you. Seriously, are you mentally retarded? How could you think I believe that stealing, for example, is a shared moral judgment? It has no moral value outside a specific set of circumstances. Humans do not steal outside a set of circumstances. You are not even doing ethics. You have no concept of ethics. Ethics is about the study of certain human actions. Since no humans steal, lie, kill, etc. outside a context, then whatever it is you're talking about isn't ethics, because human actions are within some context.
Without considering the circumstances, you're not doing ethics. Leave ethics alone, guy. You are not mentally prepared for it.