Second, I decline to provide you with a definition of “goodness”. If you want to know whether I agree with your statement, then provide non-ambiguous definitions of the terms thereof, and I will say whether or not I agree with the statement according to those definitions.

Finally you write, “I am only seeking to know if there is at least one legitimate sense in which you believe morality to be arbitrary.”

If that’s all you want, the answer is no. Have I not made this clear before now?

But anyway, on to your current point of confusion: I actually already responded to your current concern in posts 80, 81, 88, and 92 where I stated that I’m fine with you stating that you believe my definition for ‘arbitrary’ is non-standard (i.e. specialized) and even stated “I do not care if they are technically correct or not at the moment.” So I answered your concern back in August.

After we’re past the simple tautology we’ve been struggling through since post 81 — assuming we do ever get past it — I would assume one of the next points of discussion would be whether or not my definition is actually standard or specialized, and perhaps it is specialized or even based on a misunderstanding. But there is no point debating that point if you can’t even accept simple tautologies for the sake of argument.

My comment that I believed my definition of arbitrary to be standard was intended only to say that I may be wrong, but I’m sincere in my wrongness. However, if I did intentionally make up a fake definition for a word, it doesn’t change anything. For example, if you were to ask me “Bruce, are you an bear? And by ‘bear’ I mean ‘a white human male’” the fact that you made up a definition unique to you does not actually change the truth or falseness of the underlying concept in question. The words don’t matter, only the meaning does. So long as I understand what you meant by ‘bear’ I can still answer the question correctly. I would, without hesitation, respond to you that, yes, I’m an ‘bear’ in that very narrow definition that probably only applies only to you. (compare this to post 78 and 88 to see that I’ve alread addressed this.)

As for your concern over which definition of ‘goodness’ I am referring to: as stated back in post 63, I am only seeking to know if there is at least one legitimate sense in which you believe morality to be arbitrary. Plus, my real point is to prove that definition policing like this does not clarifies meaning – and surely it has not so far.

So I’m going to prove my point again by letting you pick any definition for ‘goodness’ you wish so long as it’s one that you are also comfortable interchanging it with a form of the word ‘morality’. If you need to simply assume I was using ‘morality’ loosely to mean any definition of ‘goodness’ you wish, I’m fine with that. Which definition you pick won’t matter and never did.

You portray me as being hung up on definitions, but the only reason I went to the trouble of drafting no. 90 is because you repeatedly insisted that your definitions were the “standard” ones while mine were “specialized”, and in fact criticized me for using “specialized” definitions without alerting people to the fact.

If you had not insisted that you were using “arbitrary” and “morality” in their standard meanings, then I might have had less of an issue with letting you use them however you wanted. Your insistence that your usage was standard could only give me more reason to be concerned that my agreement with your proposition might be misconstrued (i.e. taken as an agreement that Catholics believe morality — in its standard sense — is arbitrary — in its standard sense), and therefore all the more resistant to concurring with your phrasing.

You write, ‘In your post #91 I read it as you finally accepting that given these definitions it is in fact true that “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary” in your opinion.’

That is incorrect. As explained in no. 90, I still don’t know which of the distinguished synonymous meanings you are assigning to the word “morality”, therefore I can’t say that your proposition is true, since your definition of “morality” to me is still ambiguous. What I’m agreeing to do is posit A1 as an accurate statement of my belief, and to agree that when you say B1 you mean A1.

Therefore when I say A1 I mean A1, and when you say B1 you mean A1 — why we can’t cut out the middle man and just use the wording of A1 to express the thought, is a mystery to me.

I finally got around to reading your responses. I’m ignoring (and didn’t even fully read) the first two. I will be happy to consider whether or not my definition for ‘arbitrary’ is ‘standard’ or ‘specialized’ once we establish the tautologically obvious logic that’s been under consideration. Those responses will be helpful then, if we get that far.

Since you got caught up on the word ‘perceive’ and it wasn’t relevant to the discussion, let me drop it too to assist comprehension:

The position under consideration is that “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary.

I define ‘morality’ just like the dictionary, as a synonym for ‘goodness.’

In your post #91 I read it as you finally accepting that given these definitions it is in fact true that “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary” in your opinion. (Or at a minimum, Agellius, as a Catholic, believes morality is arbitrary. I don’t really actually care about the entire Church. I only actually care about what you personally believe here.) Do I understand you correctly? Considering the difficulty with communication so far, I do not want to just assume I understood what you meant any more, so please be clear so that we can finally move on to discuss definitions like you keep wanting to.

I reiterate my prior statement, that “As a Catholic I believe that goodness ultimately has no explanation other than as an attribute of God’s nature” (using “attribute” as explained in one of my preceding comments). I will refer to this statement as A1.

Now if you tell me that for you, the meaning of B1 is accurately expressed by the wording of A1, then I will not dispute that A1 is what you mean when you say B1. Henceforth when you say B1 I will understand you as meaning A1.

However this strikes me a little bit like saying, “I will agree that when you say ‘grizzly bears are pink and meek’, you really mean ‘grizzly bears are brown and huge’: I am capable of making the substitution but am not sure why I would want to.

You write, “I sincerely believe that these two definitions are just the common usage as you’d find in the dictionary.”

I looked up “arbitrary” in three online dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary; and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrarily), and none of them defined “arbitrary” the way you did, i.e. none of them used the word “nature” as part of their definitions – with one exception: I found “nature” included in a definition of “arbitrary” in Merriam-Webster, which defines it as “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience *rather than* by necessity or the *intrinsic nature* of something.” Which is the opposite of your definition.

Also The Free Dictionary includes the definition, “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and *not* by necessity, reason, or principle”. Whereas I consider God a necessary being and have always said that his nature cannot be other than it is, therefore as a Catholic I believe that goodness is as it is by *necessity*, which according to this definition is the opposite of arbitrary.

Therefore I disagree that your definition of “arbitrary” is “just the common usage as you’d find in the dictionary”.

Further, based on these dictionary definitions I have to say that goodness is *not* arbitrary.

You write, “I define ‘morality’ just like the dictionary, as a synonym for ‘goodness.’”

I looked up “morality” in the three online dictionaries cited above (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality), and found that none of them defines it as “goodness”. Whereas all of them define it as something akin to “rules or standards of right conduct”, which is my definition.

One dictionary lists “goodness” and “morality” under “synonyms”, but in doing so specifies the distinction between them, as such:

“GOODNESS is the simple word for the general quality recognized in character or conduct: ‘Many could tell of her goodness and kindness’. MORALITY implies conformity to the recognized standards of right conduct: ‘a citizen of the highest morality.’” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goodness)

Thus even accepting that they are synonyms, there is nevertheless a distinction between them (which comports with the distinction I have been making for some time). How do I know which of these distinguished meanings you have in mind when you say that “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary”?

For these reasons I still can’t concur with your proposition.

First, I take your proposition to be “that Catholics believe morality is arbitrary”. I understand you included the words “I perceive” to show that you were not insisting that this is true, but only stating your understanding. Nevertheless the point you are asking me to discuss, is not whether or not you perceive it that way, but whether or not I agree, that “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary”. Thus “Catholics believe morality is arbitrary” is the proposition under discussion.

Second, I want to confirm what exactly it is that you want me to do with this proposition. Are you asking whether I believe it’s true or false? Whether it’s an accurate statement of my belief as a Catholic? Or something else?

Let’s avoid more unnecessary confusion by removing your apparent confusion over ‘circular’ since it didn’t matter anyhow.

So I’ll restate my position that we are considering at the moment.

The position under consideration (that may be right or wrong) is that I perceive Catholics believe morality is arbitrary.

I define ‘arbitrary’ to mean ‘no explanation or reason other than one’s own nature.”

I define ‘morality’ just like the dictionary, as a synonym for ‘goodness.’

It does not matter if my definitions are arbitrary or not. I sincerely believe that these two definitions are just the common usage as you’d find in the dictionary. But even if I’m wrong, you are still capable of logically evaluating the statement. Indeed, even if I chose my definitions entirely arbitrary, as you unjustly accuse me, you can always state, ‘Yes, Catholics believe morality is arbitrary under your arbitrary definitions’ if you feel that is really the case.

Agellius, I have, without question, accepted every single specialized definition you have used with me – such as ‘morality’ and ‘goodness’ as you use them. It’s true I do not accept your definitions for my words but then logically that would be absurd to assume I was using your specialized definitions. But I have never balked at your specialized definitions for your words. If you really believe I’m using specialized definitions, then I still ask you to return to me the same courtesy I have given to you.

Wow! Somebody else is actually reading this?!