Here is a discussion on what Morality-proper entails;
Morality-proper [inherent to human nature] is about the natural spontaneous response without deliberation towards what is good in an absence of evil.
To decide whether or not to push a fat man to stop a trolley from killing one or five person is merely a thought experiment [casuistry] and would be stupid to insist there can be such real situations.
Even if there are such real dilemma, the action to take is just do what one feel within the split second; the right moral approach thereafter is to ensure such dilemma do not arise in the first place.
As usual your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic as from a philosophy gnat.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am Some thoughts for the day.
1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
PH: 1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
Your sense of 'what is fact' is delusional and from that, to you, there are no moral facts, thus no objective right or wrong answers to moral issues.
Morality-proper [inherent to human nature] is about the natural spontaneous response without deliberation towards what is good in an absence of evil.
As such morality-proper involved the self-development of neural inhibitors to modulate the inherent evil impulses with any decision whether an act is right or wrong.
This is already ongoing within humanity where the majority of humans do not have an impulse to kill human arbitrary despite having the inherent drive to kill.
Any talk of right or wrong in relation to morality is a secondary issue and has no more relevance when the majority or all humans are totally indifferent to any evil acts, like killing another human.
Note the above point is not applicable to the present [where many humans are evil-laden with evil impulses] but rather it is relevant in the future [next 100 years or later].
Yes, but only as conditioned within a human-based FSK.2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
Scientific words and signs can have meanings within the specific scientific FSK; and so on with other specific FSK, like economics, legal, political, social, history, etc.
This is why we also have specific dictionaries to represent specific meanings within a specific FSK.
Existence is not a predicate; exists or "is" is merely a copula and what exists must be predicated upon conditions [13.7 billions years of conditions] within a human-based FSK.3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
The existence and nature of things emerged and is realized within a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and subsequently a FSK prior to exposure to language to describe what realized.
The purpose of language is primary for the effective communication of knowledge of real existence and nature of things, for the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
As you can see, your thinking and views are above are illusory or too crude, and I have to add more details to make them more realistic.
