Definition of moral and political objectivist

Of course universalism is another objectivist form of bullshit and there is no proof or evidence of this so called universal coding.

The typical universal moral objectivist douchebag will defend their ideology either with god [All morality stems from god] or they’ll say morality is an extension of biology and evolution which is a favorite idiotic explanation by the secular humanists that coincidentally are the biggest proponents of government statism.

With their mumbo jumbo fake scientism or quackery they’ll say that there is some kind of morality DNA encoding and how the Y chromosome has something to do with the capacity for violence. It’s all unsubstantiated bullshit of course but the secular humanist crowd eats that shit up.

Political rights don’t really exist as it has more to do with illusion and controlling or managing public sentiment.

Political rights don’t exist and governments everywhere trample over them constantly showing that they don’t exist also.

Objectivism requires the totality of all knowledge, experience, wisdom, and intelligence whereas of yet I am pretty sure no human alive or any human in the past has acquired such. Still, this doesn’t stop every bullshit academic, politician, priest, or pretend know it all from claiming such.

Priests usually don’t claim that they know it all.
That would be a bad priest because pretty much everybody who is capable of arguing for or about something understands that nobody knows it all.
And thus it would be bad shtick for a priest to claim such a thing because pretty much nobody would follow him.

A priest would rather claim to possess qualities which his target audience appreciates. Like being humble. Being for the poor and oppressed.
You have to give people what they want but at the same time you shouldn’t be too obvious about it because that’s again a quality which people usually don’t like. Being patronising, playing too much the patron, the father figure people usually also don’t like.
You gotta be a bit the pal type but still enough distance to be worthy of their appreciation.
But that’s besides the essence of the priest which is being the/a source of their identity.
In that sense you replace their father who in all likelihood was not a strong source of identity for them.

That being said, not all leadership is necessarily bad.
And not everybody is suited for leading him/her-self well. Although that’s a very popular assumption and many people would be ashamed to admit this.

Well, “those in power” may be a very small group or it may be a very large group, even a majority of the population. While I agree that morality is “about” power, that’s not all it’s about and even if it was, if the power is with a vast majority of the group, then so what?

The best one can do, if one wants to have power over as much people as possible, is to rule over them as coverly as possible.

cough

Because the behaviors that we reward and punish change historically and culturally over time. And each of us as individuals live different lives and have different experiences in which we come [as daseins] to construe particular behaviors as “good for us” or “bad for us”.

Some even insisting the most reasonable behaviors are precisely those that do gratify us.

So, are philosophers able or unable to take that into account in deriving one or another rendition of “objective morality”? And does this pertain only to each and every possible set of circumstantial variables?

In other words, there are those who insist that the rational mind can derive universal moral obligations using the tools of philosophy, and those who argue instead that each rendition of “rational” and “irrational”, “moral” and “immoral” behavior is peculiar to an understanding of any one particular context. Change any variable and, what, we have new objective morality?

Okay, aborting unborn babies works for those who champion a woman’s right to chose. Bringing the unborn to term works for those who champion the right of all babies to be born. Both behaviors work until they come into conflict. Then what?

Okay, note a particular behavior that does in fact work for all human communities. Maybe these: that a woman needs to get pregnant before she can have an abortion, that a prisoner needs to be on death row before he or she can be executed, that a man or a woman needs to be elected as president before his or her policies can be criticized as good or bad.

On the contrary, anyone can define these things. And then our actual behaviors can be judged as either falling within that definition or not.

Definitional logic is what some call it.

I’ll try. But you have to admit you are rather intimidating to those of us who don’t take philosophy seriously.

But: I suspect that means I didn’t say it as well as you would. Until of course you yourself come into conflict with the other serious philosophers here who insist that, on the contrary, you didn’t say it well either. That’s the thing about serious philosophers in places like this. They are just as likely to savage each other as they are the amateurs like me.

Note to others:

How adequate do you suppose this is to the point that I raised? Is the whole point of philosophy – serious philosophy – confined to your residence? Must we first be in sync “meta-ethically” before we can tackle actual human behaviors that do come into conflict over value judgments? And who decides – up on the skyhooks – what that means?

Or have I simply misunderstood him?

Again, this might be relevant to the point that I am raising, but it is way, way, way over my head. Either “careful definitions” can be provided by serious philosophers in order that any particular human community can behave in a “civilized” manner with regard to the many, many moral conflagrations that have rent the species now for thousands of years, or the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is [perhaps] more relevant.

And, of course, historical, cultural and experiential context has little or nothing to do with defining [politically, legally] what those are. Just ask, for example, women, blacks and Native Americans. And not just back then.

Which is why objectively correct behavior depends on the situation.

This is your idea that people have almost nothing in common. In fact, people have a great deal in common because they share a common biology which produces common needs and drives.

They can insist on whatever they want. How does their insistence fit into “practical purposes” of a society?

You entirely avoided my point about “practical purposes”.

Notice that you say it ‘works’ for someone who is promoting that POV and you give no consideration to whether it works for society. Does it work for all women? Does it work for the average woman? Does it work for the average man? What are the benefits to society and what are the costs?
You simply do not care. That’s why you have no argument against the sociopaths killer… you view morality as rooted in individual preference. Person A likes this and person B likes that … therefore unresolvable conflict of goods.
However, if you go beyond the individual to a larger group of people, then individual conflict can be evaluated more clearly. The needs of the sociopath for self-gratification become less and less important.

A few paragraphs ago, you could figure out “practical purposes”. Now you switch back to saying anyone can define things in any way that they want.
“Practical purposes” has an implied empirical component … a feedback from the world. Not all “practical purposes” will work and not all behaviors will satisfy the requirements of “practical purposes”.

(Does Iambig recognize this? In his entire reply to me, he never acknowledges using the phrase. )

If you don’t take philosophy seriously, then why are you here?

You asked what I meant. I told you. If you are simply going to replace what I say i mean with what you mean, again, you shouldn’t bother asking me what i mean. What a waste of time.

You have misunderstood me. Much as i try to dumb it down. I am merely trying to educate you. A process you resist in every way possible. Basically, you write as if you suffer from command resistance response.

You have evidently come here to find “serious” philosophers just to be able to tell them that they don’t have their dasein on and that you do. Okay - no one, including me, is forced to engage you. That philosophers beyond your beloved William Barret and the European Emotionalists can contribute to the conversations you have can be easily discovered if you care to try. You obviously don’t care to try.

Right here, right now, the democracy you wish to negotiate is based on natural rights. If you’re going to negotiate, you gotta negotiate rights. They have a history and they are embedded in every important social institution in the US. It doesn’t matter how old they are.

It would help if you guys would show who you are quoting.

Really? You can’t tell?

Okay, let’s take the practice of clitorectomies.

There are “situations” — historically, culturally — where this practice is pursued as though it were a perfectly “natural” thing to do.

Could they then argue that it was moral to do this? Or, instead, is it possible for philosophers to assess this behavior such that it can be determined how all rational men and women are obligated to react to it?

No, regarding a moral conflagration like abortion, my point revolves more around examining the extent to which the commonalities that are in fact persistent between us [over the ages] allow philosophers to propose arguments that enable us to rationally choose between conflicting goods here.

What are they?

How do any behaviors in which different individuals insist upon different moral narratives and political agendas fit into any particular human community? Behaviors are either prescribed or proscribed in accordance with might makes right, right makes might or democratically [politically] through the rule of law.

The difference between the sociopaths and others here is that the sociopaths reject the argument that right and wrong can be derived from either God or Reason. Instead, the decision is made to choose behaviors that first and foremost gratify them.

Who then gets to decide what either is or is not in the interest of any particular society “for all practical purposes”? One way or another whatever “works” for any particular individual [as dasein] will need to be integrated into the least dysfunctional social, political and economic interactions. And always within the context of political economy. In other words, in the end, who is able to enforce their own narrative/agenda out in the world of actual interactions that come into conflict.

iam wrote:

What?

You just admitted that you are a sociopath. =D>

The sad thing is that he is actually right.

Yes Ecmandu, it really is a shame that nobody responded to that post and I highly doubt anybody here will either.

Human nature is sociopathic as it is pathological but very few like admitting to such. In varying degrees all human beings are sociopaths, some more than others of course.

Human authority concerning government for instance is filled to the brim with sociopaths and if history is any indicator the more sociopathic one is the longer and better one’s political career will be as politics rewards sociopathy.

Let’s nip this in the bud by looking at the actual characteristics of sociopaths :

healthguidance.org/entry/158 … opath.html