Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 10:21 am
Not sure of your point?
Are you implying we don't seek a consensus of the definition of the terms used [or at least with qualified reservations] then we can proceed to discuss and debates.
Can we not come to at least some understanding of what (in this case) morality is, without trying to force it into some fuzzy definition of either objective or subjective?
Getting to the heart of the matter is the objective, isn't it, or do you think trying to sound like our idea of what proper philosophers sound like is the most important thing?
Yes, we do have to use definitions, and it is important that they are clearly established at the outset, but they are only tools to help us, they are not an end in themselves.
I agree, getting to the heart of the matter is more critical.
However we need to ensure the definition of terms used are not at extreme opposites else we need to narrow the differences as much as possible.
I think this is not advisable since both parties will be talking pass each other till the cows come home.
Isn't that what is already happening? It seems that everybody is more interested in obliterating everybody else than trying to understand what they are saying. How many posts have their been about morality recently? Has anything at all been established about the nature of morality? You seem to be defending something that clearly is not working.
Nah, it is not obliterating.
Philosophy is about getting to the beliefs and truths which must be justified, not obliterated.
The bottom line is, where are one's justified and sound arguments.
As far are morality is concern, as you stated, it is an innate sense we are born with.
Therefore morality is confined within the human brain, i.e. the 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses.
Since morality is confined to some specific finite space within the brain [not like infinite universe], we should be able [very possible] to determine the nature of the extent [boundaries] "what is morality" in time.
The genome was once thought to be impossible to be mapped, but we have already done it by now and I am optimistic we will be able to establish what is the nature of morality [assuming we agree what it is] in the future.
I am not blindly defending something [morality] that is not working.
As stated above, I am optimistic with what is morality, that is why I am researching and exploring via an extensive literature review of "what is morality" with the hope of getting in alignment of what 'morality' is naturally within the human psyche.
I am serious on this, since refreshing Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, by now I have read more that 60 articles on morality and read & scan more that 30 books on morality and ethics. Suggest you do the same, then we can establish where we can agree and disagree on what is morality up to a point in time.
...i'm always wrong and I blame the idiot I am talking to.