The human ideal is that "wrong" and "illegal" are overlapping sets. We understand why it doesn't work in practice - which is why jurisprudence is in constant flux. That said the common-law definition of murder hasn't changed for THOUSANDS of years!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:12 pm Murder is a 'comparable' subset of the class, "wrong things"; Murder is not outside the class "wrong things" by your definition because what is considered 'illegal' is the public's secular concept of what is 'wrong'.
So I am venturing a guess that we've gotten it (more or less) right.
You are shooting your own argument down here. Even though the sky is not ALWAYS blue, it's SOMETIMES blue, and therefore the claim "the sky is blue" is rather imprecise and ambiguous yet you still seem to have NO strenuous objections to me saying "I know the sky is blue". It's even defined in the dictionary that way.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:12 pm In contrast, the sky is not a 'comparable' subset of "blue things" because the sky is not ALWAYS blue. The concept of the "sky" is not sufficient for it to mean a "blue thing exists" nor does its color define it; The mars sky happens to be red. So even if you restrict this to daytime, as in "the daytime sky", you'd have to continue adding further restrictions to your definition.
of a colour intermediate between green and violet, as of the sky or sea on a sunny day.
On the other hand, murder is ALWAYS wrong. In every country on Earth. In every Earth-colony in space. At every hour of every day. There are NO exceptions.
Yet you seem to have some objection to me saying "I know murder is wrong". See the inconsistency?
I don't know if you are actually aware of this, or if you are being contrarian for philosophy's sake. But I have to ask anyway.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm But you defined it as:"unlawful killing" is what the concept, "murder", means. It is circular because it would then read by substitution:"Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse".
Murder is illegal in all 195 countries on Earth and so by the law of averages - it's not a fluke.So this is circular. The extended qualification that it is "without justification or valid excuse" is also determined by such a law that prevents this type of killing. So you might alternatively change this to,Murder is defined as "the (murder) of another human without justification or valid excuse."
Are you aware that ALL English is circular in the exact same way you have spotted a circularity in my definition? If you keep playing the "substitution" game you will figure out that words have no actual meaning. Because words define other words define other words, that define other words.
define. verb. State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of
Meaning is defined in terms of itself!!!!! Panic! Panic!meaning. noun. What is meant by a word, text, concept, or action
Language IS circular. This is called the symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem ). This is why the language games philosophers play are silly. The root-cause is well understood.
To put it bluntly: Yes! WE KNOW that words are IMPOSSIBLE to define precisely! Are you doing it to amuse yourself or what?
I am not sure what is confusing you.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pmWhatObserve the number of dualisms in a single one of your paragraphs.
biased vs non-biased
default vs non-default.
most-general vs least-general.
subset vs superset.
Have you defined ANY of those classifications?
The notion of "right" and "wrong" is conceptual first. It cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE language is circular.
The notion of "biased" vs "unbiased" is conceptual first. It cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE language is circular.
Most if not all adjectives in spoken language are conceptual first. They cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS CIRCULAR.
And yet you seem to be perfectly happy to USE the phrases "non-biased language" and other adjectives without defining it (because you know you can't) to object to the imprecision of the definition of "murder".
The performative contradiction of this hypocrisy should hit you like a ton of bricks. Because I want to see you utter even a single sentence IF you were to abandon adjectives from your vocabulary.