No that's a common misconception. Good is an appraisal of value. So methaethically we have to define good or define our values as it were. Morality and Ethics both delve into value. However ethics is the study of external values whilst morality is the study of internal principles. Does that make sense? Apologies if you already know all this but I think your arguments are steering away from these fundamental conceptions of morality and ethics being studies of Value Theory.

It's all very well to say that protons are positively charged, electrons are negatively charged and neutrons have a balance of negative and positive; however you still have to figure out the properties of the three in order to properly define them.

What about those amazing individuals we all know who seem to not only want but need to put other peoples wants ahead of their own? — Mark Dennis

Did you want to say this? That (some) people put their wants before other people's wants in order to satisfy other people's wants?

I know you said they put other people's wants ahead their own, but since this is their most importantly wanted thing, their wants to satisfy other people's wants takes precedence over wanting to want their own wants satisfied before other people's.

I want you to please peel this layer of wants and make a hierarchy of wants in a non-recursive not self-contradictory order.

Morality is problematic because it depends on creating good, and good can't be defined, only conceptualized. Morality is problematic furthermore because one man's good is another man's bad. Morality is furthermore problematic because just doing good is not moral, just doing good is not more than doing good. Morality is problematic further because people overcomplicate the concepts involved, in order to justify their pet theories about morality. Morality is further problematic because one man's morality is another man's immorality. Morality is furthermore problematic because people invoke "morality" instead of morality, when they want to justify their actions or a set of actions they want to support. Morality is further complicated and problematic because there is not one underlying basic and unchallengeable moral principle that one can invoke and truly and unabashedly say "This is the bread and butter of morality".

If you need more causes why morality is problematic, please put a dagger through my throat before I left this post.

I FULLY expect all moral experts who are patting each other and themselves on the shoulder to completely ignore this post.

Good is an appraisal of value. — Mark Dennis

Aha. "This table is worth five dollars." I've done my good deed for the day, so I can go out and spend money recklessly on tables with no regard to their inherent value.

Good is an appraisal of value. — Mark Dennis

Aha. So insurance appraisers and home valuators, as well as antique clock experts are the most ethical people of all people. According to the quoted definition.

However ethics is the study of external values whilst morality is the study of internal principles. — Mark Dennis

I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize.

Yeah the fundamental principal of value theory is pretty much a consensus within moral and ethical thought as are the differences between the two which I have previously stated.

I know you said they put other people's wants ahead their own, but since this is their most importantly wanted thing, their wants to satisfy other people's wants takes precedence over wanting to want their own wants satisfied before other people's. — god must be atheist

Some of their wants/needs* is really what I meant. For example a parent might care about the long-term wellbeing of their offspring but that doesn't mean they will always do what makes the offspring happy in the short term like feeding it copious amounts of cookies.
We all have different duties to juggle as part of our roles. I think the subject aspect of life comes from how we prioritise those duties, so long as we make efforts to duly consider them.

We should probably get into how to differentiate between a want and a need.

I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize. — god must be atheist

No you shouldnt have thought that because that would be wrong. There is a difference which I have already described. Ethics and morals are not synonomous with each other but are both studies of the same thing which is value. This is 101 level stuff here you can't really make this stuff up, it is free knowledge you can easily find Here and Here.

According to the dictionary
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Does my use of the word problematic mean something that is impossible? — Mark Dennis

No I am the one saying morality is impossible not just problematic. When I said problematic that probably wasn't a strong enough word because I certainly didn't mean challenging.

Synonyms for moral are "virtuous" "good" "righteous" "upright" "upstanding"

My criticisms in the initial post was of several moral positions that are established and motivating action. We could try and invent a new moral paradigm but I don't see that happening,

According to the dictionary
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour — Andrew4Handel

Oxford definition is okay if you're speaking to Lay people. You should get a hold of the oxford or Cambridge philosophy dictionaries if you can. Either that or use the online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

There is a very good reason for this; certain concepts within philosophy are not there dictionary definitions. This is why a philosophy dictionary is more appropriate. A lot of philosophers define words to what they think they mean and some philosophers are themselves the origin of some of the words and phrases we use commonly today. For example; "Reverence for Life" is actually Albert Schweitzers contribution to the English language although the concept itself predates English.

Another good example is Kants Sublime which is very different to how you or I would originally conceive the word. Then you have German words in philosophy, Kants sublime is more closer to the German Erhabenheit in definition than it is to a standard oxford dictionary definition of Sublime.

Have you done any research into ethical pragmatism or moral ecology yet? :) I really think you'll like it.

Oxford definition is okay if you're speaking to Lay people. — Mark Dennis

I am talking about the moral values of lay people

But also the most prominent positions in moral philosophy.

Scientists can do science without worrying about philosophers definition of science and would hope you believe that people can apply a moral position before doing a degree in ethics.

The issue I pointed out in my open post about moral nihilism and moral truth is that there are no answers to moral question. This means any moral system is undermined in its lack of authority.

I can look into ethical pragmatism and moral ecology and critique them as well if you want.

If you just want to quibble or argue about the definition of morality then like I said earlier that is not a topic with an agreed upon answer or a way to reach any consensus.

Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality.

Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality. — Andrew4Handel

Except it isn't far removed; just expanded upon. Morality is the study of individual value preferences and ethics is the study of external rule systems and their value structures.

We here are not lay people. The only one who is attempting to make these words meaningless is you it would seem because you cannot accept the definitions.

No one is trying to claim authority with their moral views and observations, they are all guides. Most of them are guides to moral frameworks that have existed absent careful observed study and definition for as long as our written history can show, maybe longer.

If you want to get at the true meat of the matter from you perspective; you need to ask yourself what Meaning and Meaningless mean and question their very nature. Then ask if anything has meaning and ask if anything is meaningless.

To put matters really simply; All ethics supervene on moral principles, but not all ethics will match with Your moral principles. Its sort of like saying, all frogs are frogs but not every frog is MY frog even though some look like it. Just steer clear of the ponds who only have one or two non diverse frog species

I am criticising specific moral positions.

Kant was challenged about whether it was always wrong to lie and people have raised the absurdity of this position by pointing out that it could lead to other peoples deaths.

I don't know if you are trying to claim there is a consensus on the definition of morality. there is not a consensus and hence that undermines making moral claims.

For example you cannot agree with me that morality is to do with how to be good and I can't agree with your assertions so we are at an impasse.

These are irresolvable disputes.

The first problems I can see with Pragmatic ethics and Moral ecology is that they make unprovable assertions such as that moral behaviour exists and it evolves and involves progress.

I think claiming a behaviour is moral is begging the question.

don't know if you are trying to claim there is a consensus on the definition of morality. there is not a consensus and hence that undermines making moral claims. — Andrew4Handel

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study if you want it even more simply than I have laid out; you are practicing morality as a field of study by asking the question "What is morality". I can't make this any simpler. When you are asking if the group is moral you are talking about ethics.

I see you haven't answered my responses about Meaning.

Moral ecology makes no such claims. It merely describes differences between malignant, benign and beneficial moral and ethical ideologies in an effort to favour either low or high entropy social structures and civilisations.

Its the difference between your question "What does Morality mean to the Universe?" And my question "What does Morality mean to life?"

Would you like to direct your criticisms toward Value theory which is the theory the universe has values with which to frame our understanding of morality and ethics upon? After you have studied and reflected upon Meaning?

(...)Moral ecology makes no such claims. It merely describes differences between malignant, benign and beneficial moral and ethical ideologies(...) — Mark Dennis

You denied that morality was about goodness but now you are using the words benign and beneficial.

Morality cannot justify assuming that any behaviour is morally good, benign or beneficial without begging the question and it has to justify why any system should be called moral.

If moral ecology is just claiming moral opinions are diverse then that is just a triviality if it is not asserting moral progress then I can't see the point in it.

Some of these new moralities appear to be disguised utilitarianism and utilitarianism has faced lots of criticisms.

But I find it all very manipulative and self serving where people are just trying to make their own world view flourish whilst feigning public concerns.

So for example for someone who has a partner and child and wants them to flourish and have free health care and good education, It is not in their interest to make a rigorous moral analysis but it is in their interest to hand wave and promote some general principles that tug on the emotions so they can maintain their lifestyles and values without too much scrutiny

No one is trying to claim authority with their moral views and observations, they are all guides — Mark Dennis

Guides for what?

If you want to get at the true meat of the matter from you perspective; you need to ask yourself what Meaning and Meaningless mean and question their very nature. Then ask if anything has meaning and ask if anything is meaningless. — Mark Dennis

This would be a huge topic in itself.

The meaning of words is different than meaningfulness.

I can say a sentence like "The purple giraffe lived on the moon and was fed cucumber sandwiches"

You can create a mental image of this and understand the individual words without thinking it is something that could happen. So it is not meaningful as in having real. world import.

However I think moral claims don't seem to even reach this level of meaning. The word "Good" (or value) in isolation has positive connotations when it is not even attached to anything" Moral nihilism claims that good and bad don't mean anything or refer to anything concrete.

You can be agnostic about meaning and think that there is possibly some innate meaning in reality but speculating about some deeper meaningfulness and value does not mean you have found it can justify morality by this speculation.

↪god must be atheist
I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize.
— god must be atheist

No you shouldnt have thought that because that would be wrong. There is a difference which I have already described. Ethics and morals are not synonomous with each other but are both studies of the same thing which is value. This is 101 level stuff here you can't really make this stuff up, it is free knowledge you can easily find Here and Here. — Mark Dennis

I checked your references. Some say potato, some say potahto.

Please consider:

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[8]

Here is an example of moral absurdity.

Someone rescues baby Hitler from drowning an is deemed a local hero and admirable person. She inadvertently sentences millions of people to death.

Someone else is a twisted pedophile and murders young Hitler and is considered a monster but inadvertently saves the lives of millions.

The point here is that you need to know what the real ramifications of your morality are not just label certain actions and beliefs desirable or undesirable.

And utilitarian and consequentialist views often lead to absurdities if really applied consistently.

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study if you want it even more simply than I have laid out; you are practicing morality as a field of study by asking the question "What is morality". I can't make this any simpler. — Mark Dennis

Generally, it is accepted that you can't define a concept or a word by using the word itself to describe its meaning.

Morality is not defined, and is not definable. It is like "love" or "life" or "god"; the concept is immediately understood by all humans, but the concept escapes definition.

Therefore there may be a way to study morality, much like there are ways to study life or god or love; but there is no authority on moral philosophy. Studying life or love has biology and psychology as sciences to back up claims. Religion and morals / ethics / morality have no scientific back-up as their practices and theories lead to self-contradictory claims (as per, for the instance of morality / ethics, the Baby Hitler example that precedes this post.)

The first problems I can see with Pragmatic ethics and Moral ecology is that they make unprovable assertions such as that moral behaviour exists and it evolves and involves progress. — Andrew4Handel

I concur. Progress itself is a term laden with judgment. It is arbitrarily giving some value to change. It is true, and I accept, that progress is possible, but only if you specify the context, and the relativity of its occurrence.

556
↪Andrew4Handel
Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality.
— Andrew4Handel

Except it isn't far removed; just expanded upon. Morality is the study of individual value preferences and ethics is the study of external rule systems and their value structures. — Mark Dennis

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study — Mark Dennis

Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly:

Morality is problematic further because people overcomplicate the concepts involved, in order to justify their pet theories about morality. — god must be atheist

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept. — god must be atheist

I do try to treat them as standalone concepts however I am prone to making the same mistake as everyone used to abide by some version of a percieved lay norm.

Generally, it is accepted that you can't define a concept or a word by using the word itself to describe its meaning.

Morality is not defined, and is not definable. It is like "love" or "life" or "god"; the concept is immediately understood by all humans, but the concept escapes definition.

Therefore there may be a way to study morality, much like there are ways to study life or god or love; but there is no authority on moral philosophy. Studying life or love has biology and psychology as sciences to back up claims. Religion and morals / ethics / morality have no scientific back-up as their practices and theories lead to self-contradictory claims (as per, for the instance of morality / ethics, the Baby Hitler example that precedes this post.) — god must be atheist

They keyword before everyone's eyes that I used is "Study" or "field". Study has been defined unless you'd care to disagree with that and all I am claiming is that moral and ethical STUDY are defined as inquiries into values and principles.

So unless what you, I and everyone else is engaged in right now isn't study or inquiry then I really do not know what we are doing right now if I can't use those words. Fortunately I'm not stubborn so I like to think that words have to mean something and any argument from the standpoint that words don't mean anything should be backed up with silence.

If a concept escapes definition then by that logic so does the word "definition" and the sentence "I'm going to have a yesterday tomorrow" makes about as much sense and has as much meaning as everything else we write here.

So do you believe that there is no meaning at all? Knowing full well that your response to will therefore mean nothing?

I think the problem for moral progress is that moral attitudes have come and gone and reappeared.

There were always societies without slavery, societies with limited sexism and societies where homosexuality wasn't frowned upon. The 20th century with all its progress was one of the most barbaric.

So I am not sure that there are any new enlightened moral values. Likewise we will look back on our own values as wrong in the future.

Another old ethical issue is antinatalism which has been held by diverse groups including the Cathars throughout history and so is nothing new.

I do claim that moral philosophers who have earned Ph.D.-s in philosophy overcomplicate things, because earlier I showed that morality and ethics are fields that have no scientific backing, and the claims made are all individualistic; no consensus exists on what morality is, and the principle of morality is absolutely absent from human sphere of thought.

do claim that moral philosophers who have earned Ph.D.-s in philosophy overcomplicate things, because earlier I showed that morality and ethics are fields that have no scientific backing, and the claims made are all individualistic; no consensus exists on what morality is, and the principle of morality is absolutely absent from human sphere of thought. — god must be atheist

Except consensus does exist? Easy to claim it doesn't exist when one is outside of it.

Morality is the individualistic study. Tired of saying it, but this thread seems dead now.

Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly — god must be atheist

Oh I responded so ive somehow proved your point that everyone ignores you? I can see that I'm wasting my time arguing with you when your logic seems to be breaking so often.