Everything about morality shows up instantly in communication, when conflicts are discussed. So this subject is a good summary of the practical side of morality.

Most visible in such communication (criticism and response) is attitudes. Dominating persons try to trivialize the other person. Elitists use technical and esoteric garble to feign superiority. Authoritarians place their claims above question.

The basic standards of communication are never directly taught. Journalists learn how to get points across, but they do not learn proper criticism. A bishop supposedly studies morality; but when criticized, he will frame his opponent with misrepresentations and do a hatchet job on the strawman. A fundamentalist never questions whether belligerence is a proper standard. Nihilism is the same everywhere in refusing to respond to criticism unless a need to justify oneself is perceived.

Anyone who cannot respond to criticism is perpetrating fraud. To not respond implies that there is unaccountability. Then they want someone to cooperate with them is solving their problems. When they don't have to account for their corruptions, they don't have a valid relation to others.

Two major points need to be dwelt upon: evidence and negativeness. To not present evidence for claims is to prevent the truth from being determined. The most rudimentary moral standard should say it's unfair. It seems that no one has quite noticed.

Providing evidence is simply to explain one's claims. Specifics and details are needed when making a claim. To not explain is to railroad the subject. How much morality is needed to know and care about such things? Very little. But it's not being taught, anyplace.

Did Christ teach this subject? It seems to me that he did. He taught how to be constructive. It's the same when communicating as when feeding the hungry. His central theme is love. Love is not butchering an opponent when criticizing.

This gets to negativeness. If a person attacks you, why not attack back? Christ said to love enemies. It seems that Christ's work ended on the cross, while corrupters teach people how to live.

There is also the logic of why Christ taught as he did. At least half of the time, the enemy is the victim of injustice. To compound the injustices by retaliating against those who complain is not the path to life.

An underlying principle of Christ's teaching is one of the most basic moral truths. To attack with truth is not equal to an attack with sin. Corrupters hate truth so much that they put destructivity above truth. Truth is virtue, not sin. It defines life and ends sin. Attacking a perpetrator of injustice with truth is necessary, but responding with sin is not.

Morality is the standard that is guaranteed to be constructive regardless of whose arguments are right and whose are wrong. In communication, a moral standard increases the truth. If the truth is not tolerable, then a person needs to backtrack in life and start replacing some sin with virtue.