morality :concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
good:morally admirable
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
Let me try to guess the next few moves in hopes of speeding this up:
A: Admirable according to whom? (And why’d you use “morally” in the definition of “morality”?)
B: Most people. / Everyone. / Everyone who matters.
A: So basically, if a lot of people or everyone admires something, it is morally good? It’s a popularity contest?
B: No, it’s just objectively admirable.
A: I don’t understand what it would mean to be “objectively admirable”?
B: These are two common words. How can you not understand them?
A: Each might make sense separately, but together no. Perhaps you mean “universally admirable”?
B: Yeah, that sounds good.
A: So basically, if everyone admires something, you will want to call it “morally good.” They will probably appreciate and agree to those approving words, seeing as they all admire it as well.
C; Now that you have enough of a handle on “morality” to see the difference between a theory of morality and a theory of flight, you can read the literature.
You’re aware that words have more than one definition, and in debates it is customary to define key terms before beginning? Perhaps I could interest you in this.
It could, that’s true. Only, I think, if we clear up who’s doing the admiring. There would be disagreement among a lot of people as to what’s admirable.
morality :concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
good:morally admirable
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
Let me try to guess the next few moves in hopes of speeding this up:
A: Admirable according to whom? (And why’d you use “morally” in the definition of “morality”?)
B: Most people. / Everyone. / Everyone who matters.
A: So basically, if a lot of people or everyone admires something, it is morally good? It’s a popularity contest?
B: No, it’s just objectively admirable.
A: I don’t understand what it would mean to be “objectively admirable”?
B: These are two common words. How can you not understand them?
A: Each might make sense separately, but together no. Perhaps you mean “universally admirable”?
B: Yeah, that sounds good.
A: So basically, if everyone admires something, you will want to call it “morally good.” They will probably appreciate and agree to those approving words, seeing as they all admire it as well.
Or...?
C; Now that you have enough of a handle on “morality” to see the difference between a theory of morality and a theory of flight, you can read the literature.
??? I’m just trying to understand what your definition of morality is.
Don’t you already know what it means? I though we established that you speak English.
You’re aware that words have more than one definition, and in debates it is customary to define key terms before beginning? Perhaps I could interest you in this.
The debate, which seems to be over, was largely about whether the word has any meaning at all,
So...
“Something is moral if it is good.”
and
“Something is good if it is moral.” ?
I think “admirable” might break the circle and ground the definitions, albeit tenuously.
It could, that’s true. Only, I think, if we clear up who’s doing the admiring. There would be disagreement among a lot of people as to what’s admirable.
Circularity is typical of ordinary dictionary defintiions. OTOH, it doesn’t stop people learning meanings.