No, I said that asking about the nature of moral claims means “moral” has some prima facie meaning. “woojit” is a made up word with no prima facie meaning. Not analogous.
It doesn’t sill go through, since it did not in the first place. It’s a concrete fact that you can look up “moral” in a dictionary, for all that what you read isn’t very useful.
How is that relevant? I don’t see why the presence in a dictionary matters. But even if it did, boojum is in some dictionaries and encyclopedia too. It is a type of snark.
It’s only in some,and not all, dictionaries because it is a made up word that is supposed to be ill defined and puzzling. Some Lexicographers feel that readers need to be advised that when they encounter this word, it is being used to flag “here is something strange and meaningless”.
So what matters then is if all dictionaries have it? Why does that matter? Does this mean we couldn’t have this discussion before dictionaries were invented? Did the nature of morality change with the invention of a dictionary? Moreover, if one got every dictionary to include “boojum” and “snark” would that then make it different?
If a word is defined in all dictionaries, then the claim that it is completely meaningless is extraordinary and poorly motivated. Dictionaries are of course only significant because they make usage concrete.
If a word is defined in all dictionaries, then the claim that it is completely meaningless is extraordinary and poorly motivated
The claim was about incoherence not whether it was “completely meaningless” and I fail to see how motivation is either relevant or you get anything about a claim being poorly motivated from this. If you prefer a different analogy, consider such terms as transubstantiation, consubstantiation, homoousion, hypostatic union, kerygma and modalism. Similarly, in a Hebrew dictionary you will have all ten Sephirot defined (Keter, chochmah, etc.). Is it is extraordinary and poorly motivated to say that these kabbalistic terms are incoherent?
The point about motivation is about where burdens lie.
The discussion so far has been about the accusation that somebody somewhere is culpably refusing to define “morality”. This is the first mention of incoherence.
“incoherent” is often used as a loose synonym for “I don’t like it”. That is not a useful form of argument. The examples of “incoherent” concepts you gave are a mixed bag of concepts ranging from the well defined but false, to the well defined but ungrounded, to the ill defined. If you want to say what
specific kind of incoherence “morality” has IYO, feel free.
he examples of “incoherent” concepts you gave are a mixed bag of concepts ranging from the well defined but false, to the well defined but ungrounded, to the ill defined. If you want to say what specific kind of incoherence “morality” has IYO, feel free.
You seem confused about what argument CuSithBell is arguing. The argument is not that morality is fundamentally incoherent or meaningless but that most definitions of it fall into those categories and that our common intuition is not sufficient to have useful discussions about it, so you need to supply a definition for what you mean. So far, you seem to have refused to do that. Do you see the distinction?
But earlier you indicated that asking what a woojit is requires accepting the notion of woojits as coherent.
No, I said that asking about the nature of moral claims means “moral” has some prima facie meaning. “woojit” is a made up word with no prima facie meaning. Not analogous.
Replace woojit then with boojum and the point still goes through.
It doesn’t sill go through, since it did not in the first place. It’s a concrete fact that you can look up “moral” in a dictionary, for all that what you read isn’t very useful.
How is that relevant? I don’t see why the presence in a dictionary matters. But even if it did, boojum is in some dictionaries and encyclopedia too. It is a type of snark.
It’s only in some,and not all, dictionaries because it is a made up word that is supposed to be ill defined and puzzling. Some Lexicographers feel that readers need to be advised that when they encounter this word, it is being used to flag “here is something strange and meaningless”.
So what matters then is if all dictionaries have it? Why does that matter? Does this mean we couldn’t have this discussion before dictionaries were invented? Did the nature of morality change with the invention of a dictionary? Moreover, if one got every dictionary to include “boojum” and “snark” would that then make it different?
If a word is defined in all dictionaries, then the claim that it is completely meaningless is extraordinary and poorly motivated. Dictionaries are of course only significant because they make usage concrete.
The claim was about incoherence not whether it was “completely meaningless” and I fail to see how motivation is either relevant or you get anything about a claim being poorly motivated from this. If you prefer a different analogy, consider such terms as transubstantiation, consubstantiation, homoousion, hypostatic union, kerygma and modalism. Similarly, in a Hebrew dictionary you will have all ten Sephirot defined (Keter, chochmah, etc.). Is it is extraordinary and poorly motivated to say that these kabbalistic terms are incoherent?
The point about motivation is about where burdens lie.
The discussion so far has been about the accusation that somebody somewhere is culpably refusing to define “morality”. This is the first mention of incoherence.
“incoherent” is often used as a loose synonym for “I don’t like it”. That is not a useful form of argument. The examples of “incoherent” concepts you gave are a mixed bag of concepts ranging from the well defined but false, to the well defined but ungrounded, to the ill defined. If you want to say what specific kind of incoherence “morality” has IYO, feel free.
How are motivations relevant to where burdens lie?
Really? So, what about here?
You seem confused about what argument CuSithBell is arguing. The argument is not that morality is fundamentally incoherent or meaningless but that most definitions of it fall into those categories and that our common intuition is not sufficient to have useful discussions about it, so you need to supply a definition for what you mean. So far, you seem to have refused to do that. Do you see the distinction?