It appears that you think that there is something ineffable about the
concepts of morality and values. Your arguments here don’t support
that position.
You dispute a couple explanations of morality and related terms,
apparently because they don’t match the way we hold and manipulate
these concepts in our minds.
Concepts that we hold in our mind are highly connected to our
emotions, memories, and experiences. These thoughts are highly
individualized, and thinking them generates recurrent patterns that
interact with our mind and body. We can actually “feel” the concept of
desire. A devout Buddhist thinks about “desire” in a very different
way than a devout Christian.
So it is to be expected that explanations of morality would not
capture all aspects of our internal sense of that concept. The
explanations probably only capture the elements of morality that were
essential to their context of discussion.
This does not show that the concepts of morality and values are
ineffable. You have incorrectly compared meaning between incompatible
contexts.
Your beliefs about morality appear to stem from your belief about
“mental phenomena”. As you state it here:
I think that mental phenomena exist independently from the physical world.
What makes me believe it? If I believe that mental phenomena vanish
without the natural world, I could equally believe that the natural
phenomena vanish without my mind (or “mental world”). To believe
that one provides the context for the other is, I believe, an
arbitrary choice. Therefore, I believe in their independent
existence.
I suggest that this belief incorrectly biases your other beliefs.
It appears that you think that there is something ineffable about the concepts of morality and values. Your arguments here don’t support that position.
You dispute a couple explanations of morality and related terms, apparently because they don’t match the way we hold and manipulate these concepts in our minds.
Concepts that we hold in our mind are highly connected to our emotions, memories, and experiences. These thoughts are highly individualized, and thinking them generates recurrent patterns that interact with our mind and body. We can actually “feel” the concept of desire. A devout Buddhist thinks about “desire” in a very different way than a devout Christian.
So it is to be expected that explanations of morality would not capture all aspects of our internal sense of that concept. The explanations probably only capture the elements of morality that were essential to their context of discussion.
This does not show that the concepts of morality and values are ineffable. You have incorrectly compared meaning between incompatible contexts.
Your beliefs about morality appear to stem from your belief about “mental phenomena”. As you state it here:
I suggest that this belief incorrectly biases your other beliefs.