Submitted, for your consideration, three thoughts regarding the concept of morality: 1) Morality is not defined by what is natural. Since many natural occurrences are morally wrong, morality must be a concept apart from nature. Further, since some natural processes are morally right, we are completely unable to define morality by any reference to nature. So, since morality may not be judged by nature, but nature must be judged by morality, morality is thus supernatural in the strictest sense of the word (i.e., superior to nature). 2) Morality is not determined by rationality or awareness. These things can only tell us what is, but not what ought to be. As we know, any number of rational beings can observe the same facts, consider them intelligently, and come to different moral conclusions. This is not merely because morality is confusing or arbitrary. Rather, it is because our observations of what is are unable to tell us how things ought to be. (Dr. Lewis said something along these lines, to the effect that facts and rationale are in the indicative mood, but morality requires things to be in the imperative mood.) 3) Morality is the product of personality. In order for a judgment of morality to be made, a personal being must make the judgment. This is obvious, in one sense, since impersonal objects cannot really be expected to have an opinion about the way things ought to be. But I also believe that this idea can be inverted to mean that moral agency is a necessary element of personhood - that which has no moral sensibility is not a person. So, morality is: Supernatural, superrational, and personal. Any thoughts on this?