I think his argument is that you can’t prove morality.
For a human to “have” morality, they would have to take it on faith.
Could be connected to faith in a religious figure, or not. But faith in something since it can’t be proven.
Can exist as in is able to exist.
Seeing as how morality is learned, that makes no sense.
We can define what is moral and observe when a behavior adheres to it and when it doesn’t.
Man, did you just make two posts going for options 1 and 3???
Edit: I don’t mean to box you into those 3 anyways.
Morality means different things to different people. Some are of the position that there is a right and wrong set in stone, so to speak
No, I simply explained what I meant by can.
There is something called a dictionary. Morality has definitions in there. Morality can have more than one definition but if an individual’s definition is not one of them it is irrelevant to any discussion.
Some are of the view that there is an ACTUAL right and wrong, regardless of what a given society says
I’m pretty sure that was the purpose of contrast between moral extremes of rape and slavery vs. the color blue
May I ask why not?
Whether or not there is an absolute right and wrong, the definition of right and wrong and morality are still the same.
What you think is moral might vary but what moral means doesn’t.
If you submit to a moral code how can you change it if society changes, hopefully for the better. That’s how you end slavery.
Can men really do something as extreme as ending slavery without submitting to an alternative moral code?
There’s meanings beyond dictionary definitions.
All kinds of things mean different things to different people. Like slavery and rape
See I’m jumping around all over the place, without taking a position myself. It’s kinda fun, I see the appeal!!
What does “better” mean when comparing moral codes?
Edit:
argh!!!
No YOU wrote that not me!
I am not having conversations with myself - NOT this time!!!
No!
Yes.
How do we communicate effectively if we don’t use a similar language with its already defined for us words?
And no, the definition of slavery is universal as is rape. How different cultures view those things may vary but the defining characteristics are the same.
There’s nothing wrong with using pre-defined words from a dictionary.
There’s so much fluidity in language, and dictionary definitions change through time. The dictionary definitions change because of how people use the words. Dictionaries are lagging indicators.
Yes, almost.
Except if you look closely at the definitions of the word ‘meaning’, you would find that what you have called different cultures’ views is also different meanings.
Anyways, if your personal moral code or codes (assuming you have any) are silent on good and evil, you could’ve communicated more effectively by pointing that out sooner
Very effective communication. Thanks buddy.
Let me carefully rephrase the question then
Why/how would humans work hard and sacrifice to change one moral code for another without submitting to that “new” moral code?
Thanks for conversation, but I will be taking my leave. Kind of feels like an impasse. Thanks again.
Sorry if I messed it up…
Also, does it seem to you like I understood your line of reasoning?
It isn’t that it is not wrong to use dictionary definitions; it is simply correct. You didn’t mention how definitions can change; you mentioned personal definitions.
Slavery means what it does in any language. This is how we can have these things known as translations and translators.