No, you certainly did say that it was fruitless to define "ethics", "virtue", "justice" and the like, meaning that no specific meaning could be given to any of them, and that you expected ambiguity and vagueness, and that they could not be applied to "real world" circumstances, which means that if you try and discuss ethics, virtue, justice and so forth with me, you can only ever expect me to understand vaguely something that is ambiguous and to which you attach no specific meaning, and which has no good relationship to the "real world".
No, I believe I noted I
found defining words like these to be fruitless. And yes I do. And after many, many years of trying. But I would then note in turn this did not make defining them necessarily
fruitless. If your definitions work for you, fine.
But I can't imagine broaching and then defining ethics didactically without at the same time imagining this definition being used in a discussion regarding actual behaviors in conflict. Otherwise, what is the point of defining it at all? And all I can do is take any definitions I come upon in exchanges like this and situate them out in the world. In fact, out in the world of actual human interaction
is the only place that ethics is of interest to me.
So when you ask about ethics, you're saying "Here's a vague, ambiguous thing to which I cannot attach a specific meaning, cannot qualify, and which I cannot relate to the "real world" although I find it imperative that if we speak about it we relate it to "real" circumstances, please answer a question about it", call any circumstances you want "ethical" or applicable to "ethics" and yet do not reveal why you believe the word "ethics" could be attached to these situations, and expect people to know what the discussion is really about.
Yes, I am saying that sans God
a word like ethics can only be derived from the many conflicting and contradictory ways in which mere mortals approach it. Just follow its course through the annals of history---or through the interpretations given to us by some of the world's most renouned philosophers. What abstract definition would they
You can look up the word in the dictionary, of course, but that only gets you started when confronting actual conflicted ethcial claims. Yet the manner in which you convey my meaning here is more reflective of a caricature. I can't help but wonder why.
Well, if this is your initial premise, then yes it is impossible to expect to (a) have people understand you, except in general head-nodding or head shaking, or (b) understand anybody else, except in the same manner. When you cannot clarify the meaning of the major word in your question, in fact, when you point to quotes saying that it is fruitless to define, then you make it impossible to communicate through language.
Again, this is nothing less than a gross distortion of my approach to ethics. And how difficult was it to follow my assumptions with respect to the moral claims swirling around abortion?
I wonder: why I am suddenly confronted with what seems [to me] to be a rather gruff and dismissive tone on your part?
I have my own suspicions of course.