Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Can we define words such as “good” and “bad” in terms of objective…
Can we define words such as “good” and “bad” in terms of objective features of the world? (CCH2A)
What does the question mean?
First we needed to divide it into concepts (maybe we should do that too)
"Is there some way to universally define the words "good" and "bad"?
Can we define "good" and "bad" in terms of objective examples from the real world?
Can we classify objective features of the world as "good" or "bad"?
What are the key concepts in the question, and what do they mean?
Good (arguably defined by its opposite): something that is favorable, and is morally "right"
Bad (arguably defined by its opposite): failing to reach an acceptable standard in terms of ethics/morals
Objective: isn't influenced by personal feelings or opinions; uninfluenced by/lacking perspective;
something that is true about the world independently of us or our perceptions
Features of the world: aspects of the world
Define: Determine/identify the meaning/nature of something
What are some ideas that came to mind as you began to explore the question? What are some potential answers that you thought of?
We can't really be objective about these terms; always linked to perspective
The question seems to imply that there are always (or arguably always are) good and bad in objective features of the world.
Maybe we can define the terms "good" and "bad" in terms of a particular group of people and their beliefs/opinions
These definitions seem to always be connected to societies/groups of people, rather than being objective
Who has the power/capacity to define these concepts objectively?
Where does the "original definition" of thes terms come from? Is there even an original definition?
Pragmatic purpose: something "good" needs to serve a purpose that is universally agreed as valuable or "good"
What does this question have to do with language? Why are we studying it in a unit about knowledge and language?
If you weren't taught the words, and what they mean, then you wouldn't know what "goodness" is -- you might not have a concept of goodness?
Can you have a thought/concept without having a word for it?
On the other hand, you might know the concept, but not have a label for it?
Maybe language is something that is constructed by a society, and that overlaps with ethics (if we agree that ethical rules are made by a society).
What are some possible answers that come from the research you did for homework?
Moral realism: there are objective features of the world that define ethical judgments/values
For example, the welfare and health of human beings are (at least partially) objective features of the world. Most human beings seek health, and there's more-or-less a consensus about what that is, and that it is valuable)
Seeing ethical judgments as means to a goal, we can agree that there are some ethical facts
Moral absolutism: the rightness or wrongness of something is absolute and objective
Moral relativism/cultural relativism: that actions can be either right or wrong based on different culures/different perspectives. Depending on the place that we are, what is considered good or bad might change.
One possible strand of moral realism is based in religion: moral claims are objective, because they come from God.
Moral anti-realism: there are no objective moral facts, instead moral judgments are subjective attitudes/feelings
Moral judgments are expressions of dislike, rather than factual judgments
No objective features of the world exist for claims about what is good or bad, only "semi-objective features of the human world." (This comes from the article)