I think it is quite obvious that the small insight into morality gained from looking at "law by itself" is almost nothing compared compared to the wide ranging and depth of insight that can be gained from personal experience, history and science. Additionally your categorizing personal experience, history and science as "non-normative areas of knowledge" immediately leads me to ask; what is it that you call a normative areas of knowledge?
As for clarity, it is not always necessary. For example when various possible interpretations of a single word lead to the exact same understanding in addressing a particular topic, then it is unnecessary to set out exactly which definition is being used. That kind of clarity is asked for at the point when a distinction becomes necessary and not before. Other wise, almost every other word in a text would need to be defined, even where an unknown prior understanding was already assumed and accepted by both, just not expressed. To avoid such wasted use of words, clarity is assumed until one raises a particular question necessitating further clarification.
As best I can tell, you claim here that existing societal rules are the definition of morality. Are you prepared to defend as moral everything ever required by a social rule which has existed?
You should re-read what I said. At no time did I claim or even come close to implying that "societal rules are the definition of morality." Do you just make this stuff up so as to be able to answer your self? Additionally I never said, nor implied, that all social rules are moral.
If you're going to make a claim like this, you should explain it and defend it with arguments.
I am more than ready to defend any statement I've made with an argument, where the statement is actually disagreed with. But I'm not going to attempt to read your mind so as to determine in advance which statements you are going to say are in need of a supporting argument. In that case I would have to make an argument for every phrase in every sentence written.
Trying to change the subject is not carefully addressing what was being discussed.
In this discussion, the naturalists are attempting to defend a highly counterintuitive claim: that random, meaningless aggregations of atoms ought to behave a certain way. And have not succeeded.
You claim that I am trying to change the subject? There has been no discussion on this thread about the physics of atoms. No claim has been made by anyone other than you as to behavior of "random, meaningless aggregation of atoms." If I am wrong here, please state the posted reply number # where such a claim was made. The only one attempting to change the subject under discussion is you.
I stated in a prior reply which you quoted:
Morality as a concept is quite capable of being explained without mention of the supernatural by definition.
To which you replied:
Perhaps, but I have not yet seen anyone demonstrate this by providing the explaination.
Yet when I look over the replies by liberallarry and P_A_I , I find that they have more than adequately explained this in substantial detail. Both appear quite bewildered as to what more you could possibly want. The lack of clarity on your part further confounds any assessment as to what it is you are looking for.
Wide ranging, deep insight still doesn't tell you what you ought to do without some concept of a good to be pursued, which cannot be supplied by those things. The closest would be seeing a good in your personal experience an realizing you want it -- but what sets this good about from the things you see and don't want?
Additionally your categorizing personal experience, history and science as "non-normative areas of knowledge" immediately leads me to ask; what is it that you call a normative areas of knowledge?
"Giving directives or rules" -- dictionary.com
As for clarity, it is not always necessary. For example when various possible interpretations of a single word lead to the exact same understanding in addressing a particular topic, then it is unnecessary to set out exactly which definition is being used.
I've tried to think of an example where different senses of a word might work equally well, and I can't. After all, there's a reason we consider them different senses. So you're babbling here. Of course, in real life the meaning is usually clear from context. But none of this relates to the problem, which has nothing to do with one particular word. It's a whole claim which looks and smells like a non sequitur. Personal experience, history, and science; therefore morality. But why?
As best I can tell, you claim here that existing societal rules are the definition of morality. Are you prepared to defend as moral everything ever required by a social rule which has existed?
You should re-read what I said. At no time did I claim or even come close to implying that "societal rules are the definition of morality." Do you just make this stuff up so as to be able to answer your self? Additionally I never said, nor implied, that all social rules are moral.
You said:
On the other hand "law" is a source for determining existing societal rules, and there by qualifies as a source for determining morality by definition.
So law is a source for determining existing social rules and is "there by" a source for determining morality by definition, thus morality by definition must be social rules; or else the whole thing is meaningless blather, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
If you're going to make a claim like this, you should explain it and defend it with arguments.
I am more than ready to defend any statement I've made with an argument, where the statement is actually disagreed with. But I'm not going to attempt to read your mind so as to determine in advance which statements you are going to say are in need of a supporting argument. In that case I would have to make an argument for every phrase in every sentence written.
As it happens, I made things simple for you by quoting it, so if you are indeed more than willing to defend any statement you made, go ahead and do it, don't waste pixels with this irrelevant stuff about reading minds. I laid it out in italics.
Here, I'll do it again and make it even more specific:
'personal experience, history, and science' completely triangulate both the rise of, as well as the means of determining morality as a concept.
Explain and defend that.
You seem to prefer to try to make me guess at what you had in mind. And by pure guesswork I'd say it has something to do with self-interest, personal experience etc. showing the best way to advance it. But let's not argue my guess at your meaning. Explain it yourself.
In this discussion, the naturalists are attempting to defend a highly counterintuitive claim: that random, meaningless aggregations of atoms ought to behave a certain way. And have not succeeded.
You claim that I am trying to change the subject? There has been no discussion on this thread about the physics of atoms. No claim has been made by anyone other than you as to behavior of "random, meaningless aggregation of atoms." If I am wrong here, please state the posted reply number # where such a claim was made. The only one attempting to change the subject under discussion is you.
Now this is a remarkable paragraph. When my opponent is reduced to this level, I think I might legitimately claim victory and stop.
Yet when I look over the replies by liberallarry and P_A_I , I find that they have more than adequately explained this in substantial detail. Both appear quite bewildered as to what more you could possibly want.
What I want is very simple: an explanation of why a person ought to behave one way rather than another which he might prefer that makes sense within the naturalistic worldview. Attempts have been made, but none have stood up to examination.