Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:11 pm
Just a thought.
Defining terms is vital for a discussion to be productive. So defining the word 'morality' is necessary if we want to discuss what we call morality.
But to define a
sign such as a word can be merely to explain how we use it.
Whereas to define a
thing is to describe it, which is a radically different operation.
And to confuse or conflate the two different uses of the word 'definition' is a mistake. Mistaking the
use of a word for the thing we (if only supposedly) name with the word leads to no end of philosophical muddle.
Note we are doing "Philosophy" in this forum, i.e.
- Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
3 Branches of philosophy
3.1 Aesthetics
3.2 Ethics
3.3 Epistemology
3.4 Metaphysics
3.5 Logic
3.6 Mind and language
3.7 Philosophy of science
3.8 Political philosophy
3.9 Philosophy of religion
3.10 Metaphilosophy
3.11 Other subdivision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
The task of definition is merely a very small part of Philosophy. You are giving sign-word definition too much emphasis.
Definitions are one of the prerequisite of doing philosophy which is basic but it must be followed by the other tasks of philosophy, e.g. epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
As such any average person doing philosophy would not conflate sign-word definition with defining and understanding the 'thing' within reality which is confined to epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
And dictionaries reinforce the muddle. Look up a definition of the word 'dog', and you'll find a generalised description of a dog - as though the meaning of a noun is the thing we name with it. (A dog is a real thing - a feature of reality - not the meaning of a word. What an absurd idea!)
As I had stated, dictionaries [general, philosophical, knowledge-specific] are essential as a starting point, but simultaneously must be covered by their related philosophical subjects within epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
Yes, the word 'dog' is merely
a universal not a particular thing as such dealing with it [word] merely represent a half-truth.
What is more real is the "particular" dog in conventional reality [science and the likes] which must be verified and justified within a specific FSK as "obtain".
But at a more higher level of reflection regarding what is really most real, one will find there is no dog-in-itself outside words and specific FSKs; it does not obtain at this higher level of of reality.
In his
Problems of Philosophy, Russell had already justified the issue when he argued 'perhaps there is no real table out there at all.'
So in your example above, 'perhaps there is no real "dog" at all'; which sound absurd but most true when reflected at a higher level of philosophy.
It is not likely you will understand this point since you are dogmatically stuck within your 100 meter tall silo.
In doing Philosophy we must qualify all the above circumstances without being dogmatically clinging to merely one aspects of it.
So does the question 'what is morality?' want an explanation of how we use the word 'morality' and its cognates, such as 'moral' and 'immoral'? Or does it want a description of a thing of some kind? And if so, what kind of thing is morality?
I think the whole, vast failure of the philosophical enterprise - the failure to answer seemingly profound philosophical questions - what is knowledge? what is truth? what is identity? - comes from this banal, ridiculous misunderstanding.
To understand "what is morality" we need to exhaust all the meanings of the word 'morality' in how it is used which can be referenced here, note the list of the category below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
which is also linked with Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethics
Thus 'what is morality' is covered within the sphere of how the word is used within the categories.
Whatever problem you think there is, it is due to your ignorance and dogmatic clinging to narrow understanding of what philosophy should be doing.
Within the whole range of issues raised within the Morality and Ethics community, they can be reduced the various branches of philosophy [listed above] which is mainly on issues of
epistemology,
metaphysics and
philosophy of language.
From the beginning, Ethics & Morality is about doing Good and avoiding Evil [as defined].
It is also from the beginning that theists claim their morality [commands of ought_s] is real and objective from a God.
It was Hume who threw in a spanner to the above theistic claim and Hume also extended his argument 'no ought from is' [
NOFI] to all other objective claims of morality, i.e. as from pure reason.
But due to his ignorance [of his time] which Hume admitted, he was not aware the possibility of the inherent physical moral potential within the human brain.
But there were loads of people who believe [intuitively] there are objective moral facts based on their intuitions as
abduced from evidence of everyday experiences.
Unfortunately they are having a hard time arguing against Hume's Guillotine [NOFI] where their opponents could easily counter claim their unjustified intuitions as subjective opinions and beliefs. This is the bandwagon you have been riding on which is merely dogmatic based on ignorance and arrogance.
But the tide is turning, there is an exponential expansion of knowledge in many advanced fields, especially in the neurosciences. It is from these advances that I had argued,
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
It is time for you to "
Wake Up from your Dogmatic Slumber!!"