Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for? — Posty McPostface

What I think...

It's easier to say that philosophy is morality than that morality is philosophy.

It's easier to say that philosophy is morality than that morality is philosophy. — TheMadFool

Interesting. So, you're assuming a process based theory. Namely, that the practice of 'philosophy' itself will lead to 'knowing' what is ethical or moral. Somewhat circular but, I get the gist.

Is that right?

I mean we're quite sure that philosophy is a ''good'' thing but morality itself seems to be beyond philosophy's reach.

I mean we're quite sure that philosophy is a ''good'' thing but morality itself seems to be beyond philosophy's reach. — TheMadFool

One of those epistemological gaps manifesting itself in this thread; but, how do we know the practice of 'philosophy' will be a 'good' thing? And, how does one remove the authoritarian tendency of thinking about 'philosophy' in the 'right' way?

But surely even a flawless argument is only true if the premises are secure.

So the gap that omniscience would have to fill lies in the truth of what gets assumed as motivation for your premises.

And then when it comes to the general validity of some topic, like ethics, there are the metaphysical level premises that are always going to be open to question.

Is morality objective or subjective ultimately? Either choice is just a necessary leap of faith to secure some definite further line of argument.

So deduction alone never bridges any epistemic gap. The only hope of at least minimising that gap is pragmatic reasoning - a cycle of abduction, deduction and inductive confirmation that can measurable narrow the divide between what was assumed for the sake of argument, and then how that works out in the long run. Given that the question had some purpose.

And then when it comes to the general validity of some topic, like ethics, there are the metaphysical level premises that are always going to be open to question. — apokrisis

Generally, yes. There is some ambiguity always present in the process of determining what moral truths are generalizable. There have been some outcomes due to this manifest in relativism of moral and ethical truths. However, I do believe that as a species we all have some fundamental desires that can be generalized, such as the golden rule. I guess the divide between the empiricists and rationalists is manifest here; but, we aren't entirely subjective creatures living in our own worlds, so to speak.

Is morality objective or subjective ultimately? Either choice is just a necessary leap of faith to secure some definite further line of argument. — apokrisis

Both. I don't quite understand the obsession with picking sides with either/or.

So deduction alone never bridges any epistemic gap. The only hope of at least minimising that gap is pragmatic reasoning - a cycle of abduction, deduction and inductive confirmation that can measurable narrow the divide between what was assumed for the sake of argument, and then how that works out in the long run. Given that the question had some purpose. — apokrisis

Yes, that is again a roundabout way of saying that science can answer these truth per the pragmatists.

But surely even a flawless argument is only true if the premises are secure.

So the gap that omniscience would have to fill lies in the truth of what gets assumed as motivation for your premises. — apokrisis

Rereading this I find it important that you mention "motivation". Or the desire to do "good". This leads me to believe that science is devoid of this important aspect of incorporating the will to do good or at least is not guided by it. Hence, I return to the question posted in the last sentence of the OP...

Rereading this I find it important that you mention "motivation". Or the desire to do "good" — Posty McPostface

I only said that pragmatism is epistemically closed by the fact some position works. There has to be a purpose that was thus served.

Whether that desire is for the good is another issue. It becomes part of the meta-ethical question being explored. You could take it as foundational - to the degree you have got a clear idea of its antithesis.

Both. I don't quite understand the obsession with picking sides with either/or. — Posty McPostface

It’s a corollary of starting a deductive argument. You have to start somewhere. And a foundational fork in the road is the most definite kind of place to start.

And that is also a reason for pragmatism. If you believe reality starts in the vague, then form is what gets imposed by the dialectic. It does still start in the either/or of a foundational act of dichotomisation. But the goal is then a resolution or synthesis.

I only said that pragmatism is epistemically closed by the fact some position works. There has to be a purpose that was thus served. — apokrisis

You seem to have packed in some concepts quite tightly. Could you expand on the above for my simple mind to comprehend?

Whether that desire is for the good is another issue. It becomes part of the meta-ethical question being explored. You could take it as foundational - to the degree you have got a clear idea of its antithesis. — apokrisis

Well, it is the whole purpose of philosophy according to Plato, to want and attain the good through the practice of philosophy. I don't see how any progress within the field of philosophy has emerged in regards to that, apart from just squabbles about process based evolution of concepts or dialectics or the comprehension of the platonic forms, which always seem to be fleeting. In some strange sense, it would seem that what people take from philosophy seems always perverted or disguised as snake oil to the betterment of the individual promoting the 'good' in the real world.

It’s a corollary of starting a deductive argument. You have to start somewhere. And a foundational fork in the road is the most definite kind of place to start. — apokrisis

Pragmatically speaking you are aware that there has been little benefit in trying to state the objective from the subjective. Take the following statement for example to illustrate the futility in trying to do so:

,,There is no objective truth."

And that is also a reason for pragmatism. If you believe reality starts in the vague, then form is what gets imposed by the dialectic. It does still start in the either/or of a foundational act of dichotomisation. But the goal is then a resolution or synthesis. — apokrisis

Or maybe it's just all logical simples at play in logical/state space. Excuse me for that blurt.

Therefore, every logical fallacy arises due to gaps in knowledge. — Posty McPostface

I can see how you might think this, but it really doesn't tell us anything. In other words, it doesn't get us anywhere. I could say this about any virtually any subject. For example, my errors in mathematics, biology, history, etc, are due to gaps in knowledge.

Thus, the best method at our disposal in discovering objective truths is science. — Posty McPostface

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to knowledge, viz., that science is somehow superior to other methods of knowing. It really depends on what we're talking about. Is science superior to my experiential knowledge of say, the claim that yesterday I tasted orange juice and it was sweet. I don't need science to make the claim, and I don't need science to know it was true. However, science maybe superior when it comes to analyzing what it is about orange juice that makes it sweet, i.e., what is its molecular makeup, or some such thing. So whether one area of knowledge is superior depends on a variety of things.

Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for? — Posty McPostface

There is no one method that works in every situation, i.e., there is no one description or method at arriving at truth that works in every context.

One can start with the premise that if one were omniscient then no logical fallacies would arise in the reasoning process of a person or entity.

Therefore, every logical fallacy arises due to gaps in knowledge.

Thus, the best method at our disposal in discovering objective truths is science. — Posty McPostface

This conclusion concerning science doesn't follow from your premise. Logical fallacies arise from mistaken logical process. Science is not the appropriate field of study to determine correct and incorrect logical process.

But, science cannot discover the truth or validity of highly subjective ethical or moral claims.

Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for? — Posty McPostface

Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, in general, and so this extends to include right and wrong in various logical processes. So the field of study which deals with correct and incorrect logical process, and acts to determine logical fallacies, is a subcategory of morality. This is why Socrates had to ascend all the way to "the good" in order to establish a foundation from which to attack the fallacies of the sophists. The method which supports this ascent is Plato's dialectics. This method involves an analysis of the use of words in argumentation, to determine improper use and the fallacies which follow, in an effort toward producing true definitions.

Could you expand on the above for my simple mind to comprehend? — Posty McPostface

It’s straightforward. The very notion of something working says there was some purpose being served.

Well, it is the whole purpose of philosophy according to Plato, to want and attain the good through the practice of philosophy. I don't see how any progress within the field of philosophy has emerged in regards to that, — Posty McPostface

Some people might think ethics is the prime purpose of philosophy. Others might target being. Or reasoning.

I can see how you might think this, but it really doesn't tell us anything. In other words, it doesn't get us anywhere. I could say this about any virtually any subject. For example, my errors in mathematics, biology, history, etc, are due to gaps in knowledge. — Sam26

The whole purpose in a Wittgenstein'ian sense is to know the limits of one's knowledge as to prevent nonsense from arising.

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to knowledge, viz., that science is somehow superior to other methods of knowing. It really depends on what we're talking about. Is science superior to my experiential knowledge of say, the claim that yesterday I tasted orange juice and it was sweet. I don't need science to make the claim, and I don't need science to know it was true. However, science maybe superior when it comes to analyzing what it is about orange juice that makes it sweet, i.e., what is its molecular makeup, or some such thing. So whether one area of knowledge is superior depends on a variety of things. — Sam26

So, we just need to know when one or some other tool is appropriately used in discovering truths about facts instead of another. I already outlined that science is one tool for discovering certain truths not all. The deeper question looming in my mind that I might not have expressed adequately is what tool does philosophy serve or to what purpose?

There is no one method that works in every situation, i.e., there is no one description or method at arriving at truth that works in every context. — Sam26

Agreed.

Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, in general, and so this extends to include right and wrong in various logical processes. So the field of study which deals with correct and incorrect logical process, and acts to determine logical fallacies, is a subcategory of morality. This is why Socrates had to ascend all the way to "the good" in order to establish a foundation from which to attack the fallacies of the sophists. The method which supports this ascent is Plato's dialectics. This method involves an analysis of the use of words in argumentation, to determine improper use and the fallacies which follow, in an effort toward producing true definitions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another epistemological gap manifest here is how do we know that a tool is being properly used in the context of some inquiry to the truth of some matter. The logical process, as you call it, is independent of this function, no?

Some people might think ethics is the prime purpose of philosophy. Others might target being. Or reasoning. — apokrisis

Thus, why the ambiguity inherent in philosophy, as opposed to the clear cut nature of science, which the positivists cherished, although fallaciously via the inability to verify the verificationist rule.

Thus, why the ambiguity inherent in philosophy, as opposed to the clear cut nature of science, — Posty McPostface

From a philosophy of science point of view, that statement seems very disputable.

From a philosophy of science point of view, that statement seems very disputable. — apokrisis

How so? I don't have much to go on about here.

It was a joke. If science did in fact believe it served some clear cut purpose, philosophy would feel more "ambiguous" about that - even when supposedly being all about clearing up any ambiguity.