(June 13, 2012 at 6:50 am)apophenia Wrote: You know Genk, if you cite a definition that is not inclusive, as if it were inclusive, someone like me might come along and accuse you of cherry-picking, which is what you did. The SEP says that it can be used in either of those two senses, not that those are the only senses in which it can be used. (Did you even bother to read the rest of the article? I rather doubt it.) Moreover, citing a specialized encyclopedia like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as if it were a general encyclopedia is pretty underhanded too. You must be losing the argument to resort to such tactics. For Christ's sake, 'argument by dictionary'? Have you lost your ever loving mind?
Here's what Wikipedia says:
Quote:Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.
Where's the damn "negative kudo" button?
I specifically did not use the wikipedia definition because it, like most of the dictionaries, leads to circular reasoning.
Consider the definition you gave for morality - "Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)."
Now look up "good" under in the same source - relevant page found under "Good and Evil". That is defined as "In religion, ethics, and philosophy, the dichotomy "good and evil" refers to the location on a linear spectrum of objects, desires, or behaviors, the good direction being morally positive, and the evil direction morally negative."
The same issue comes up with most of the dictionaries. Morality is often defined as principles (concept/code) regarding good and bad (right and wrong), and the definition of good (or right) is given with respect to morality.
The generic meaning of good (or right) without the context of morality or ethics is as follows
1. Something is considered "good" if it furthers the intended purpose. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore a sharp knife is a good knife. Similarly, the purpose of a student is to learn, therefore a student who gets good grades (a measure of how much he has learned), is a good student. Similarly, a moral agent would be considered good, if he adheres to the principles of a given morality (thereby moving towards the goals of that morality).
2. Something is considered "right" if it conforms to a set of principles or standards. For example, 4 is the "right" answer to 2+2 =?, because the answer follows the principles of mathematics. Similarly, if an action corresponds to the principles laid out in morality, it'd be considered morally right.
This leads me to the conclusion that it is good and right that must be defined with respect to morality and the definition of morality should be independent of it. Further, since this is a philosophical discussion, I consider citing a philosophical encyclopedia to be reasonable. If you can find a definition of morality that does not rely on circular meaning, I'd be glad to find out.
