We can also ask whether some de facto behavior is really vorpal. That raises the question of what “really vorpal” means. Luckily, I can tell you what it really means: nothing at all.
If you claim the word “moral” means something that I—and most people who use that word—don’t know that it means, then 1) you have to tell us what it means as the start of any discussion instead of asking us what it means, and 2) you should really use a new word for your new idea.
The study of those behaviours is descriptive ethics. The prescription of those behaviours is normative ethics.
Luckily, I can tell you what it really means: nothing at all.
Negative solutions are possible, as I said.
If you claim the word “moral” means something that I—and most people who use that word—don’t know that it means,
I didn’t claim that.. I did say that a precise and correct definition requires coming up with a correct theory. But coming up with a correct theory only requires the imprecise pretheoretical definition, and everyone already has that. (I wasn’t asking for it because I don’t know it, I was asking for it to remind people that they already have it).
If I had promised a correct theory, I would have implictly promised a post-theoretic definition to go with it. But I didn’t make the first promise, so I am not commtted to the second.
The whole thing is aimed as a correction to the ideas that you need to have, or can have, completely clear and accurate deffinitions from the get go.
2) you should really use a new word for your new idea.
People should read carefully, and note that I never claimed to have a New Idea.
I take it you mean negative solutions to the question: does “morality” have a meaning we don’t precisely know yet?
What I’m saying is that it’s your burden to show that we should be considering this question at all. It’s not clear to me what this question means or how and why it arises in your mind.
It’s as if you said you were going to spend a year researching exactly what cars mean. And I asked: what does it mean for cars to “mean” something that we don’t know? It’s clearly not the same as saying the word “cars” refers to something, because it can’t refer to something we don’t know about; a word is defined only by the way we use it. And cars at least exist as physical objects, unlike morality.
So before we talk about possible answers (or the lack of them), I’m asking you to explain to me the question being discussed. What does the question mean? What kind of objects can be the answer—can morality “mean” that ice cream is sweet, or is that wrong type of answer? What is the test used to judge if an answer is true or false? Is there a possibility two people will never agree even though one of their answers is objectively true (like in literature, and unlike in mathematics)?
The whole thing is aimed as a correction to the ideas that you need to have, or can have, completely clear and accurate deffinitions from the get go.
If we only have an inaccurate definition for morality right now, and someone proposes an accurate one, how can we tell if it’s correct?
No, by negative answers, I mean things like error theories in metaethics.
I think your other questions don’t have obvious answers. If you think that the lack of obvious
answers should lead to something like “ditch the whole thing”, we could have a debate about that. Otherwise, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t been said already.
We can also ask whether some de facto behavior is really vorpal. That raises the question of what “really vorpal” means. Luckily, I can tell you what it really means: nothing at all.
If you claim the word “moral” means something that I—and most people who use that word—don’t know that it means, then 1) you have to tell us what it means as the start of any discussion instead of asking us what it means, and 2) you should really use a new word for your new idea.
Thanks for the correction.
Negative solutions are possible, as I said.
I didn’t claim that.. I did say that a precise and correct definition requires coming up with a correct theory. But coming up with a correct theory only requires the imprecise pretheoretical definition, and everyone already has that. (I wasn’t asking for it because I don’t know it, I was asking for it to remind people that they already have it).
If I had promised a correct theory, I would have implictly promised a post-theoretic definition to go with it. But I didn’t make the first promise, so I am not commtted to the second.
The whole thing is aimed as a correction to the ideas that you need to have, or can have, completely clear and accurate deffinitions from the get go.
People should read carefully, and note that I never claimed to have a New Idea.
I take it you mean negative solutions to the question: does “morality” have a meaning we don’t precisely know yet?
What I’m saying is that it’s your burden to show that we should be considering this question at all. It’s not clear to me what this question means or how and why it arises in your mind.
It’s as if you said you were going to spend a year researching exactly what cars mean. And I asked: what does it mean for cars to “mean” something that we don’t know? It’s clearly not the same as saying the word “cars” refers to something, because it can’t refer to something we don’t know about; a word is defined only by the way we use it. And cars at least exist as physical objects, unlike morality.
So before we talk about possible answers (or the lack of them), I’m asking you to explain to me the question being discussed. What does the question mean? What kind of objects can be the answer—can morality “mean” that ice cream is sweet, or is that wrong type of answer? What is the test used to judge if an answer is true or false? Is there a possibility two people will never agree even though one of their answers is objectively true (like in literature, and unlike in mathematics)?
If we only have an inaccurate definition for morality right now, and someone proposes an accurate one, how can we tell if it’s correct?
No, by negative answers, I mean things like error theories in metaethics.
I think your other questions don’t have obvious answers. If you think that the lack of obvious answers should lead to something like “ditch the whole thing”, we could have a debate about that. Otherwise, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t been said already.