Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You never get around to saying what the word, "moral," itself means. You've described some things you believe are right or good but there are many things that are right and good which are never considered moral issues. What's the difference between what is morally right and good and what is just plain old right and good, like, that's the right size tire for that car and my mother's apple pie is really good. Tire sizes and pies aren't moral issues, are they? So what makes something a moral issue?

Why not?

I have already given my points re what is morality specific to, i.e.

• 3. As such all humans are "programmed" to do good and avoid evil and this is an inherent function of morality which is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain/mind that is connected to the whole body.
  
  4. What is good with reference to morality is non-evil.
  
  5. What is evil [with reference to morality] are thoughts and acts that will impinge and hinder ultimately on 1, i.e. survival.

The above is from this post herein;
viewtopic.php?p=466543#p466543
You did not read or rather you did not grasp and understand the points?

Having define 'what is evil' obviously we have identify what are the evil acts and what are the good acts specific to 'morality'.

It has already been discussed, the critical moral facts are;

"no human ought to kill another"
and other relevant moral facts,

surely
"that's the right size tire for that car and my mother's apple pie is really good"
has nothing to do with any evil intent.

Why you are so lost is you did not bother to define "what is morality" in the first place.
Frankly the need for a definition-till-consensus is philosophy 101 and you seem to be ignorant of that.

[RCSaunders]

Why you are so lost is you did not bother to define "what is morality" in the first place.
Frankly the need for a definition-till-consensus is philosophy 101 and you seem to be ignorant of that.

I do not use the word, "morality," you do. I'm just interested in what everyone means who uses the word, but neither you or anyone else (including every philosopher since Aristotle) can do that. It's just a word with some mystic meaning no one can identify. It's like the thousands of pages of discussion written in discussion of the transmigration of souls or the alchemist's philosophers stone. There are no such things as transmigration of souls, philosopher's stones, astrology, magic, or morality.

There are right and wrong ways for human beings to live but they have nothing to do with the concept of morality which is nothing but a hold-over from religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why you are so lost is you did not bother to define "what is morality" in the first place.
Frankly the need for a definition-till-consensus is philosophy 101 and you seem to be ignorant of that.

I do not use the word, "morality," you do. I'm just interested in what everyone means who uses the word, but neither you or anyone else (including every philosopher since Aristotle) can do that. It's just a word with some mystic meaning no one can identify. It's like the thousands of pages of discussion written in discussion of the transmigration of souls or the alchemist's philosophers stone. There are no such things as transmigration of souls, philosopher's stones, astrology, magic, or morality.

There are right and wrong ways for human beings to live but they have nothing to do with the concept of morality which is nothing but a hold-over from religion.

There is nothing that is absolutely-absolute in terms of the meaning of any words, concept or ideas.
What is critical is the meaning and context attached to the word, in this case, morality.

Morality as I had defined it is basically "what any human should act in terms of good and evil."
In addition, all matters related to morality [as defined] must be justified empirically and philosophically.
What has such a 'morality' [as defined] to do with theistic religions and the transmigration of souls or the alchemist's philosophers stone as you had claimed for 'morality'.

[Peter Holmes]

Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.

Moral opinion: human should, or ought to behave in line with their programming - it's morally right for them to do so, and morally wrong for them not to do so.

There's no connection of any kind between those two assertions. The second is not a factual assertion, and it doesn't follow from the first.

Your thinking is too dogmatic.
Thus you have to twist my points and force them to conform with your rigid views.

My point is this;

• 1. Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.
  
  2. Input 1 into a Framework and System of Morality and System, perform justification processes.
  
  3. Output: Justified True Moral Facts and standards,
  human ought to act in alignment with their programming.

Note, I never use the point, it is morally wrong for them not to do so.
The humans should adopt self-development programs to develop their moral competence so that they align progressively towards the moral standards so that their actions are spontaneous in alignment with the standards.

I have mentioned the above many times, but you do not seem to cognize it at all, instead you deliberately twist my points to fit your dogmatic schema.

Oh, my bad. Okay here's why your argument is unsound.

P1: Humans are programmed to act in certain ways.
P2: The moral framework and system of knowledge produces moral facts.
C: It's a moral fact that people ought to act in line with their programming.

In VA world, that probably makes sense. And there's obviously no point in explaining why in the real world it doesn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.

Moral opinion: human should, or ought to behave in line with their programming - it's morally right for them to do so, and morally wrong for them not to do so.

There's no connection of any kind between those two assertions. The second is not a factual assertion, and it doesn't follow from the first.

Your thinking is too dogmatic.
Thus you have to twist my points and force them to conform with your rigid views.

My point is this;

• 1. Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.
  
  2. Input 1 into a Framework and System of Morality and System, perform justification processes.
  
  3. Output: Justified True Moral Facts and standards,
  human ought to act in alignment with their programming.

Note, I never use the point, it is morally wrong for them not to do so.
The humans should adopt self-development programs to develop their moral competence so that they align progressively towards the moral standards so that their actions are spontaneous in alignment with the standards.

I have mentioned the above many times, but you do not seem to cognize it at all, instead you deliberately twist my points to fit your dogmatic schema.

Oh, my bad. Okay here's why your argument is unsound.

P1: Humans are programmed to act in certain ways.
P2: The moral framework and system of knowledge produces moral facts.
C: It's a moral fact that people ought to act in line with their programming.

In VA world, that probably makes sense. And there's obviously no point in explaining why in the real world it doesn't.

As usual you are skipping a lot of the nuances,

• P1: Humans are programmed to act in certain ways to facilitate survival.
  P2: The moral framework and system of knowledge produces moral facts.
  P3: The moral framework processes the programmed acts as moral ought.
  C.: Therefore the moral oughts are moral facts.

As I had argued the moral ought or moral facts which are represented by a specific neural algorithm can be tested or verified.
For example it is observed murderers, serial killers and other evil prones, e.g. psychopaths has damaged or weakened inhibitors to restrain them from the programmed ought-not of killing.

[Peter Holmes]

'What's the definition of morality?' looks like a reasonable question.

But we use the word definition and its cognates in different ways. To define a word, such as morality, is to explain how we use it or could use it. But by contrast, to define a thing is to describe it, which is a radically different linguistic operation. Question: is a definition of morality an explanation of how we use or could use the word; or is it a description of a thing?

Next question: is what we call morality a thing of some kind, with properties, that can therefore be described? If it is a thing of some kind, then it certainly isn't a real thing like a dog or a tree. So is it an abstract thing? If so, is an abstract thing a thing that exists in some way or other, and does it have properties that can be described, using factual assertions with truth-value, in the way a dog or a tree can be described?

The myth of abstract things runs deep and strong through the history of philosophy. But it's an ancient metaphysical delusion. An abstract noun, such as morality is not the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that therefore has properties that can be described. Or, to be more cautious, pending evidence for the existence of abstract things, belief that they exist is irrational. (The dodge-claim that abstract things are concepts in minds - more abstract things - doesn't fix the problem.)

And since a definition of morality isn't a description of a thing - a kind of thing that may or may not exist, and that has properties - then it can only be an explanation of how we use the word morality and its cognates and related words. And this applies to all the important abstract nouns that philosophy deals with: truth, knowledge, identity, causation, beauty, and so on.

'What's the definition of morality?' looks like a reasonable question. But misunderstanding it takes us straight down a rabbit hole.

[RCSaunders]

There is nothing that is absolutely-absolute in terms of the meaning of any words, concept or ideas.

Thank you for making that clear. Since your words never have any absolute meaning, I can safely ignore them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is nothing that is absolutely-absolute in terms of the meaning of any words, concept or ideas.

Thank you for making that clear. Since your words never have any absolute meaning, I can safely ignore them.

You are not doing philosophy but merely shitting all over the place.
What is generally claimed as facts [justified] are not absolutely-absolute.
Do you ignore facts even if they are a threat to your life?

[Skepdick]

Oh, that's helpful.

Is there such a thing as morality? Yes, definitely.
What is morality? It cannot be identified.

Morality is like, woo-woo, right?

You understand that there is a difference between identification and definition, yes?

You can identify cats from non-cats. You can't define what cats are.

[RCSaunders]

There is nothing that is absolutely-absolute in terms of the meaning of any words, concept or ideas.

Thank you for making that clear. Since your words never have any absolute meaning, I can safely ignore them.

You are not doing philosophy but merely shitting all over the place.
What is generally claimed as facts [justified] are not absolutely-absolute.
Do you ignore facts even if they are a threat to your life?

No, but I ignore blather when it's a threat to one's sanity.

[Luxin]

deleted 456

[KLewchuk]

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
I have done a survey of 'definition of Morality' within Google [10 pages of search results] and there is none!

The followings are what I found;

Dictionaries

• There are loads of variation on the definition of what is morality.
  e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

There is only one [??] book and a few articles which is specific on 'Definition of Morality', e.g.

Articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
  
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
  
  Definition of Morality - David Wong
  https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... inition_of
  He presented definitions and concept of morality from various philosophers.
  
  and definition from many other articles from blogs, etc.

Book:

• The definition of morality
  Gerald Wallace, Arthur David McKinnon Walker
  https://www.amazon.com/Definition-Moral ... 0416151108
  
  However note a review and comment on the book.
  Review: Unfortunately, the literature does not offer a clear and succinct "definition" of morality. These writers work around the problem, but never conclude with anything like, "and thus, the definition of "morality" is...." So to that extent the title is misleading, but the book offers a good collection of readings nonetheless.

I can only find one specific book on 'the definition of morality'. Any other??

The Point is:

It is common to hear discussions of whether an action is moral, as if “moral” was a word with a specific agreed upon meaning. Unfortunately, the word has so many meanings that its interpretation is extremely difficult without extra information. For example, if I say “murder is immoral”, I could actually mean any of the following:

• 1. Murder violates an abstract principle that I would like all people to live by.
  2. The Bible (or some other religious text) forbids murder.
  3. As a result of evolution and natural selection most people have an innate emotional aversion towards murder.
  4. Murder is against the law.
  5. Murder is labeled as being “immoral” by most people in my society.
  6. Murder usually reduces the total net happiness of society.
  7. The idea of murder provokes in me an emotional state that I associate with “wrongness”.
  8. Nearly all religions urge us not to murder.
  9. Nearly all societies have laws that punish murderers or have customs that ostracize them.
  10. Most people would feel a sense of guilt if they committed murder.

Unfortunately, even dictionaries cannot clarify for us what the word “moral” means.

A great many well respected philosophers begin by assuming that morality is a single, well defined thing (without actually defining it) and then spend their time arguing about what properties it must have. But if we haven’t defined morality, how can we derive it’s properties?

If we cannot define what exactly we are discussing, how can we even be sure that we are really discussing a single entity at all?
[also how sure that your definition is definitive in alignment with the true referent]

As the list above shows, there are many very different things that we might reasonably call “morality”, including our genetic moral intuitions created by natural selection, the societal rules that are deeply ingrained in us, religious laws, and certain abstract concepts about how to treat each other.

I am not arguing here that morality is meaningless, nor am I arguing that morality has no well defined definition to individual people or even to specific groups of people. Utilitarians, for example, can talk about morality with each other with little confusion, since they are working with a common definition.

My argument, simply stated, is that the word “morality” means many different things to different people, and that discussions about what is moral often rely on the false assumption that all parties involved can understand each other’s words.
https://www.clockbackward.com/2009/07/2 ... -morality/

My point and question;
Since there is so much variations in the definition of 'what is morality',
my question to the Moral Facts Deniers [Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and gang] is,
on what grounds do you justify your idea and definition of what is morality is the definitive one?

and Views?? [any one]

Morality concerns how people ought to live their lives, which is to avoid suffering and pursue well being. Consistent with a Buddhist / Aristotelian view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality concerns how people ought to live their lives, which is to avoid suffering and pursue well being. Consistent with a Buddhist / Aristotelian view.

I agree with the above.

To reinforce the definition, the term 'suffering' and 'well-being' will need to be defined and explained to accompany the above definition to confine them to the moral perspective.

[Belinda]

My definition of Morality is: God.

Do you mean 'God' is a synonym for 'morality' ?

[Luxin]

deleted 456