Clearly, it depends on the extent to which, after running your values [here and now] through “humans being social” you come to champion particular political prejudices which you then embrace by championing in turn a “one of us” [the good guys] vs. “one of them” [the bad guys] mentality.
And then the extent to which you either do or do not recogninize that intelligent and articulate liberals and conservatives are able to pose a set of assumptions that result in reasonable arguments that adequately defend clearly “conflicting goods”.
And then the extent to which you acknowledge the role of political economy as this pertains to the power necessary to actually enforce a particular legal agenda.
Admittedly, I really haven’t made much of a distinction between you and folks like Uccisore when it comes down to defending particular sets of behaviors relating to particular conflicted goods re the day to day liberal vs. conservative conflagrations that pop up as a result of the Trump presidency.
But, sure, no doubt about it, perhaps I am at fault here for not recognizing more of a distinction.
In that case, this revolves more around the extent to which you do not see yourself as being entangled in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Or, perhaps, as being considerably less entangled in it than I am. In other words, that you don’t see you own value judgments as “existential contraptions” nearly as much as I do.
I am far more inclined to see both sides as being able to concoct arguments that can be construed by reasonable men and women as reflecting a “priority” point of view.
In other words, if you argue that babies have a “natural” right to be born then the priority ought to be in restricting or outlawing abortions. If, however, you argue that women have a “political” right to abort, then the priority ought to be in legislating an agenda whereby women are not forced to give birth.
And there are pro and con arguments like this relating to all of the other conflicts in which liberals and conservatives find themselves in opposition.
And neither liberal nor conservative idealists have a definitive argument when confronted with the sociopaths [or the global economy nihilists] who argue that in a Godless universe morality ought to revolve by and large around self-gratification.
Yes, but folks like Marx and Engels concocted an alternative materialist narrative that roots capitalism organically/dialectically in the evolution of economic production going all the way back to nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes. Which is a considerably more objective account of the “human condition”. But to what extent is it also a “scientific” analysis of all these many variables? Here it obviously comes up short. And the rest as they say [so far] is history.
And my point revolves far more around the extent to which you believe that your account of capitalism can be demonstrated to be an essential or objective understanding of human interactions over the centuries. In other words, that all rational and virtuous men and women are in fact obligated to think about it as you do.
From my frame of mind, this is true only to the extent that you focus in on a particular conflicting good [political issue] and discuss the extent to which you embrace either a “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine” frame of mine or embrace instead the “one of us” vs. “one of them” dichotomy.
And then the extent to which you root your own ideals/values here in God or in political ideology or in a particular rendition of what is said to constitute “natural” behaviors.
Well, to the extent that I would agree [and I largely do] you are arguing more for a “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine” mentality. Then what’s left is to explore the extent to which our individual values are rooted more in dasein or in philosophy. Which perforce focuses in on the extent to which [as you noted on another thread] moral and political discourse either can or cannot be in sync with logically and epistemologically sound arguments.
Okay, from my frame of mind you are acknowledging that your value judgments, in a world of contingency chance and change, are basically just particular political prejudices that you subscribe to here and now and that, given new experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., you may well change your mind.
If that is the case then you are clearly not an objectivist as I understand the meaning of the world. And I was wrong to call you one.
I have always acknowledged this. Over and again on various posts I have noted how, over the course my life [my lived existence], “I” have embraced any number of conflicting moral/political agendas.
Thus my liberal persona today is but one more existential fabrication/contraption. And I am no less entangled in my dilemma above.
Would you describe your own values in the same manner?
Which is why I always suggest that you note a particular value such that we explore the extent to which your narrative is or is not in turn an existential contraption embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
As opposed to a frame of mind in which you argue that all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as you do.
Admittedly, I may well be reacting to you more in the manner in which folks like Uccisore and Turd caricature you then in the manner in which you really are.
