Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:16 am
It seems to me that IC has redefined the word, "morality", to match his own preference. When he talks about morality, he is referring to something different to what most of us understand the word to mean. Morality might not be ,a matter of subjective opinion as far as IC is concerned, but dictionary definitions certainly seem to be subject to his subjective opinion.
I think VA has redefined the concept to be the thing that he thinks he can deliver rather than the thing everyone else understands by the word. IC has more sort of narrowed his focus onto duties to the exclusion of all else. So VA's absurd notion that morality cannot discuss right and wrong shows he is mad, as it is for discussing those very things. IC's inability to move beyond imperatives and commands shows he is lacking.
Rules and explanations for rules are definitely part of what mean when we say we are thinking about what is moral. It's just that there should be more to it than that. Overall, if we look for a definition of morality that includes everything that needs to be included, but excludes everything that doesn't belong, I think we will fail because morality just isn't that sort of definable thing.
That apparent disfunction is sort of why I am a moral antirealist, and I suspect it sort of covers why you are too. I was never persuaded by any particular argument to be any specific type of antirealist, I just looked at the whole thing we're trying to categorise and ultimatley I don't recognise a single definable category there at all.
VA and IC are doomed because they each are trying to elevate one little portion of what we are taking about when we discuss morality to be the prime thing upon which everything else can properly rest. But what exactly is that other stuff they must support? Neither would be able to answer that question, although neither would permit you to ask it anyway.
