What are the limits of philosophical language in exploring moral values?
that’s it?
im not sure but i think the philosophy op’s are supposed to have a thesis just so you know 
-hth
My, you’re quick.
This is a bare question, and looks a little like a help-with-an-essay type of one at that, so I’ve moved it to Hall of Questions.
lol thx …just happened to be there at the time i guess 
Good point. Here then is my thesis:
Morality and ethics are words we invented because they needed to be invented. Why? Because in interacting socially, conflicts ever abound, We need a language then to sort these conflicts out and decide which behaviors are deemed appropriate and which are not. But in the absense of an objective moral font [which most call God] how are mere mortals to do this?
Philosophically some say.
We can, through reason, they maintain, invent ethical principles which are said to apply to all.
But is this true?
Also, the evolution of life on earth has culminated thus far in us. And we are hard-wired such that, unlike any other species, we are able to make distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, true and false.
But we come into the world “thrown” [as Heidegger would say] into particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts. Thus, regarding the “content” of our moral and ethical values, this comes from those who indoctrinate us as children.
Then the question becomes, as more autonomous adults, what can philosophy offer us so that we jetison the indoctrination and decide on our own what is truly rational and irrational behavior?
My speculation is that philosophy can give us the tools to explore this in an epistemologically sound manner, but regarding actual ethical conflicts, there is no way to distinguish right from wrong behavior universally, essentially, objectively.
you’re speaking of judgment…judgment is entirely dependent upon intelligence therefore this statement above would be false when knowing that judgment is dependent upon intelligence unless you’re speaking of a universe without intelligence but then you would be speaking of nothing itself which would make the statement invalid as well- though it does have a point it is not a valid point with further understanding of the fundamentals of existence.
God bless
-hth
i suppose that since the thread now has a thesis you may want to have it returned to the philosophy thread possibly.
Are you sure about that?
But how do we decide whose judgment is more reasonable in the absense of a transcendental or an omniscient point of view? If people express different moral judgments about abortion for example to what extent can philosophy resolve the dispute?
Yes, this seems to be a cross-cultural occurence. And how could it not be so? Whenever folks interact socially, politically and economically there are going to be disputes and out and out conflicts. If we weren’t hard-wired somehow to deal with this we would not have invented rules of behavior.
Animals make distinctions between true and false though, for instance. If they didn’t, they’d die off pretty quickly - i.e. they’d eat the wrong mushroom or something. And since animals behave according to social rules, and suffer consequences when they don’t, they must then distinguish between right and wrong. They certainly distinguish between good and bad, as they make choices in their lives. A housecat, given a choice between two laps to leap into, will choose one of them - or choose neither of them.
Yes, this is true. But for animals it is always either/or. They do not engage in the is/ought distinction that we do. Or not anywhere near the sophistication with which we pursue it.
Right and wrong, in other words, is basically a function of instinct.
Thus philosophical language is of minimal use here with respect to moral and ethical choices.
Now, with the human species, is/ought is everywhere—as is philosophical language. My speculation revolves around the extent to which this philosophical language [the language of Kant, for example] is stymied in attempts to resolve moral conflicts.
People make and wear clothing. If any other animals do this, I’m not aware of it. Some people make and wear really elaborate clothing that serves no purpose. As far as I can tell, this clothing does not much affect a person’s basic biology, though I suspect a tight girdle might give you indigestion and make it hard to breathe.
I’m not sure I understand your point. People making and wearing clothing is not very often construed as a moral conflict.
But it can be. For example, some people make clothing out of fur. Other people are outraged by this. They claim it is unethical to slaughter animals for their pelts. Is this true?
How would a philosopher approach it rationally?
I meant for clothing to be a metaphor for language, and overly fancy clothing a metaphor for some philosophical language.
Ah, a metaphor. Sorry, I missed that.
As I see it, some philosophical language is overly fancy in the sense that the arguments used are basically just words defining and defending other words.
Right, so what I’m arguing is that I disagree with your statement, “We need a language then to sort these conflicts out and decide which behaviors are deemed appropriate and which are not.” Or if there is some truth to it, I think it is overstated. With respect to your question about the limits of philosophical language in exploring moral values, I’d say that philosophical language is nearly impotent in exploring moral values.
I could easily be wrong though. I’m open to the possibility.
I believe that philosophical language is impotent in resolving moral values in conflict. But it can explore them though. Still, what happens is that the words that become concepts and the concepts that become argument reach a point where they just loop back onto each other. They become tautological in that the words end up pointing only to other words to define and defend them.
But when the words are brought down to earth and made to point at actual behaviors in conflict, nothing ever gets resolved. We have been arguing back and forth now for thousands of years about hundreds and hundreds of moral issues and none of them have ever been embraced by all in one way rather than another.
morality itself comes from God
There are different places where one can assert that. In a church, around the table at a family dinner, in a philosophy venue.
Regarding the latter context, however, you can be sure such an assertion will be challenged.
Why should I believe this is true?
But here again the limitations of philosophical language used to explore things like this quickly comes into play. In other words, sooner or latter we will both be forced to rely on premises that are backed up solely be the manner in which we accept the meaning of the words used in them. And thus any conclusions averred will be predicated on these assumptions in turn. Then we just go around and around in circles.