I find it difficult to think of things specific that philosophy might have had a major part in creating. It might help in disentangling difficult issues but it doesn’t actually give an answer that one can act on, confident that it is the answer. It doesn’t help in deciding how many soldiers it’s worth sacrificing for a cause, or how many civilian deaths are acceptable, or if euthanising is ethical, or abortion, or if God is real, or if all men are equal.
The whole subject about philosophy has not been about creating morality but understanding it. If philosophy has addressed morality then morality already existed. Nor has philosophy, as far as I can see, actually nailed down anything substantially true about morality. I know I can read a book on morality and the writer will lead me through their rational argument until I reach their conclusion, but in the end it’s their conclusion which will differ from others.
Someone could refer to the American Constitution as a philosophical driven argument but isn’t it more the case that it’s based on a sense of morality, cultural to be sure, that was already present in the minds of the men who wrote it and that, as a consequence, determined right from wrong. And once again we have this dichotomy of men stating that all men are equal while at the same time owning slaves. Not to mention that many historical acts that may have been philosophically driven or influenced are later repealed or ditched because they were considered flawed. That might, again, be due to variance of social norms over time, which then suggests that philosophy is not universal. If it’s cultural then fine, but what use is it if it can’t be applied universally?
Kant’s ideas about phenomena and noumena are very interesting, but in what way can people apply them to knowledge and their life?
Philosophy never created anything, it just shone a light on things. But once seen it became impossible to define.
I was thinking about Zen Buddhism and koans.
“What is the sound of one hand clapping?”
Your intellect will not solve this puzzle, your philosophy is not up to it.
Though I do see, for instance, how a law may be drawn up, based on a set of morals , that addresses the guilt or innocence of an act. When it’s then decided just how the law should be applied, how it addresses nuances and other subtleties then that would be philosophy in action. But this is reasoning and argument, which logic, a field of philosophy, studies. So they do not appear to be the same thing.