Oh that is very true. I’ve had major beefs with the OED when used as evidence in debates. A ltiny bit of knowledge of the history of the development of the OED and its bias is pretty clear. Doesn’t invalidate it as support but definitions can be wobbly things to try to rest an entire argument on.
Yeah, he gets ridiculous. Basically, in short, ANYTHING that says “morality is relative to culture” he will have a knee jerk reaction to, because in his view, morality is absolute and independent on individual culture. Therefore, a culture can be absolutely wrong, even if within the culture it is correct. That, I believe is his position. Yes, citing the book was ridiculous of him, but he tends towards hyperbole. At least it helped me get a better idea where he’s coming from.
Actually, a definition is simply putting an outline around a concept. “define”. Doesn’t matter who does it. It only matter whether it is considered an acceptable definition to both parties for effective communications.
Now you can shoot me for having said that smile emoticonI’m generally not an anti-realist but I’m always on the hunt for tracing the history of concepts across time.
That is, something can be quite real, describing something real, but going about it the wrong way, akin to how people talk about “Love” as if it’s a thing. But there is no such thing as Love. From what I understand, moral means good. Aaron believes there is an objective good that is distinct from what people say is good.
Moral Should _may_ lead to Societal Should but
Social Should _never_ leads to Moral Should.
Is this an accurate portrayal of your stance?
Fascinating position. Of course without reading the book, I am getting biased viewpoint. Nevertheless, it gives me a taste of it.
While I don’t necessarily agree to a mind-independent moral normative reality… much as I don’t believe society is a “real thing” but rather a convenient construct… nevertheless, I can see it’s _pragmatic_ value of use in an ‘as if true”, at least to maintain some sort of firm moral stance in a post religious world based upon morality that at least appears to be in some form instrinsic, based upon their common usage across human history and cultures.
a) There are stars out there. That is one kind of fact.
b) There is an objective morality distinct from belief and society that is intrinsic and can be revealed in a similar way that objective facts about the Universe are revealed…. however…
A fact of “the stars is out there’, is not quite at the same level of fact of specific moral facts.
But not being at the same level as a physical fact does not invalidate its “factness” but rather makes it somewhat more difficult to pin down. yet, it does not mean it does not exist, or is all relative, or culturally dependent.
I’m not saying I agree with this or disagree with it; I’m just trying to comprehend the position and re-explain it as best I can.
I welcome corrections Aaron J Mobley
It seems to be a more nuanced position with distinct set of criteria that is not a dogmatic position nor is it strictly based upon logic alone.
I gave some reasons about a page up in the thread but without Aaron confirming or denying that I am correct, incorrect, it’s of limited value.