Our actions dont say what is true, but what we believe to be true.
Sorry, I should have been more precise in my language. That is a better way of phrasing it. However, I still don't agree with this statement insofar as universal morality is concerned. When I act I don't think I ever believe that my actions are something everyone, everywhere, at any time should be doing. Switching from saying my actions indicate what I think is "moral" to "not immoral" is not a trivial change. Saying that my actions indicate that which I believe is "not immoral" is all but meaningless, because to infer from that what I believe to be "immoral", we'd have to look at what I'm not
doing, which is a list that is infinitely long. How do we distinguish from that list the subset of things which I'm not doing because I consider them immoral, from the things that I'm not doing for other reasons (missing criteria A
)? Just because I'm not doing something at the moment, doesn't mean I consider it to be immoral. And what about the things I'd consider immoral that I've never even imagined doing?
So really, the only way to derive any moral content from my actions is through positive statements, the problem with which I've already outlined above:
a) The assertion that actions always make positive moral statements self-destructs;
b) The assertion that actions sometimes make positive moral statements is meaningless unless you provide criteria for determining when they do vs. when they don't (missing criteria B).
So, lacking as we currently are criteria A and criteria B, all that we're left with is statements about things that we consider "not immoral" (as distinct from "moral"), which doesn't prove the existence of morality at all.