Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think he's wrong on philosophy not making progress (we shouldn't expect all philosophical disciplines to progress at the same rate, and we've only been doing this for a few thousand years), but I think he's right on the latter point. Which means that when two philosophers use words like "universals" or "free will" or "morality," the targets of their terms may be irreconcilably different concepts.

I think clearing up the equivocations is how philosophers make progress

^^

So it's absolutely true that morality can only be objective if it's defined a certain way. And nothing compels us to define it that way. We could define "morality" in terms of obeying commands or rules, and then it would be impossible to find an objective basis for it.

True but there are certain definitions that are just plain silly. If we define morality to be "Becoming a serial killer and murdering everyone for fun" then I'd say that's objectively immoral because if serial-killing isn't considered immoral then the word "immoral" wouldn't mean anything at all, but it does.

To say that murdering to people just for fun can be the definition of "moral" would be like saying bleeding constantly from both eyes can be the definition of "healthy".

Hehe.

Just as if we defined or conceptualized "bachelor" differently, then there might be a possible world in which there were married bachelors.  The question is which definition/concept of morality is the most useful.

Of course we'd have to remember that was completely the opposite of the definition we normally use

Redefining bachellors so they can be married is like redefining a circle so it can be square... or redefining morality so it can apply to mass murdering without any relief

I think part of the problem is that when we first learn about "right and wrong" as children, our capacity for empathy isn't fully developed. When we're children, we can't rely on empathy to moderate our behavior, for the same reason that sociopaths can't. We're missing some vital hardware (and many psychologists argue that kids can't be diagnosed as sociopaths, because normal kids share too many symptoms with sociopaths).

Agreed but then again objective is not the same as universal

I mean, come one. Children believe in Santa Clause. And (in reasonable courts of law) they can't be tried as adults either, which makes them neither rational nor moral.

There can still be objectively moral answers in principle even if they're impossible in practice though

Which is an important pragmatic consequence of this philosophical issue. We've got to teach kids what real morality and rationality are. And as a society, we're not making much of an effort right now.

Yes. And for a start I think "Don't become a serial-killer" is step one of the meaning of "morality" at least