One concept that was
interesting to me was all the different types of definitions that can be used
for any given word. It’s pretty interesting not just that the same word can
have different meanings depending on the context, but even in the same context
a word can be given different definitions. I feel this is an issue that comes
up a lot in philosophy and moral debates. For example, when talking about
abortion and a woman’s right to choose a lot of the arguments are just about
what words like “life” and “death” mean. What does it mean to say that someone
is a person? Is a fetus an individual who has individual rights? These
questions make the cornerstone of the debate and it is essential an issue of definition.
There are also a lot of persuasive definitions in that debate. For example, you
call someone who is pro-abortion “pro-choice” (or “pro-death”, if you want to
push some buttons.)
I really strongly agree with your statement that the different contexts of words with different definitions strongly coincides with moral debates. Usually when it comes to moral debates people look to the constitution to see what is written to be, as US citizens our rights, and when it comes to these rights they are written in a very vague way so that they can be used to look at all situations. This itself presents a problem when it comes to defining what these rights are and like your example of life and death, and as to whether a fetus is alive or not ties back to our right to live. Great example overall.
ReplyDelete