Okay, if Jung were around today and he was confronted with a patient traumatized by an unwanted pregnancy, what “normative theory” would he bring to the sessions with her?
Or is this not pertinent to a philosophical discussion of morality?
This is entirely too abstract to be of any interest to me. Or is that the point?
That it is pertinent is exemplified by using it as a particular application to the problems associated with Dasein, and objective criteria. It is pertinent, inasmuch as your concern with the moral aspects of the abortion issue.
That psychological philosophy can cover all of the philosophy of the mind is a difficult question, but there is an intersection with it, which may be an intersecting pattern related quiery, where, answers could be gathered where intersections are prevelant, generally.
This is why seek conflated dualities where the intersections are most notable, even here in the issue of the aspects.
What would think in this juggernaut of a problem?
Or rather what could an abortion clinic think in terms of thinking in the particular vernacular of a normative standard which has some bearing on the psychic relevances of the shared consciousness of the principle players.
I would need First of all wear your shoes, and approach a possible interaction between you, Jung, the clinic, the mother, with the best version of a hypothetically developed human embryo-as it relates to the status of being considered a potential human being.
That all these factors need to be placed into some kind of congruence, a congruence which fit all the pieces, may be a start.
Philosophically, it reminds me of the play, Sartre’s ‘No Exit’ where the characters do not fit, they are obliged to stay in this place, and deal with each other.
There, is somewhat an analogy between that scenario, and the one with the jigsaw pieces involved in an abortive scenario.
The potential mother, the potential baby, the father, (if there is one), the clinic-it standards, and their stringent or lax application thereof, they are existentially tied together in a semblance of cause and effect as regards to each of their concerns, rationalizations, value systems, and self worth-identity problems so on.
They will each react differently not only to the problem at hand, that is, to abort or not, but to each others’ opinions, expressions, and emotionality. They will at times obfuscate each other, trying to outdo convictions to gain the upper hand, so as o gain stature amongst each other, as far as who voice will carry the whole group.
But isn’t this the way all interaction works? Here the devicive point is where psychologisms intersect with tradition/philosophy as is mundanely understood, ethics, morality, etc.
Their reactions will determine to a point and change some views, others’ who have some relevance within these
, modifying the fit of their common goal: either to abort or not.
Jung would advise a common language built upon the most deeply felt level that has bearing on decision making, and realizing this, agreement on the most general level possible, where an maximum inclusion within a general concept will imply a more conscious situation.
It would be preposterous to believe that an uneducated, single mom with issues would be able to reach a consensus level, but that is the level where others involved would need to start.
In Searle’s terms, that would be epistemic vs ontic concept of objectivity. The first referring to a mode of judgment (e.g. apple is green because that’s the best way we can perceive it), the second referring to a mode of existence (e.g. apple is green regardless of whether anyone is perceiving it or not.)
Fantasies are an example of ontic subjectivity because they only exist when there is a subject creating them in his head.
The second concept – the ontic concept – is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
A mind that refuses to fully process new information – to integrate it within its model of “how its subject should act” – becomes self-referential. The whole intellectual process becomes less of an attempt to adapt to reality and more of an attempt to preserve, to protect, how one already acts.
Every impulse is a carrier of information regarding some aspect of the external world – external in the sense of existing outside of that small part of the subject that does the processing. This includes information regarding movements within one’s body and mind as well as information regarding movements outside of one’s body and mind.
Jung was against abortions.
http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2016/36/jungabortpreview_2016_09_02_q.html
Because life is a mystery. 
It is not dying, it is DEAD.
Exactly. And the definitional problems are not the terms „living (being)“ and „being alive“ but the terms „moral“ and „morality“, at least the latter terms much more than the former terms.
And that is one of the real differences between human beings and all other living beings: language (meant as human language - of course). Humans can discuss, criticize, argue, comment, define, … talk, …, thus communicate by using the most complex language of all times.
Agreed, although I have to mention that the fact that homosapian has never really acted according to the respective moral system is a bigger issue than the fact that homosapian „has never shown a precisely accurate understanding of it“. Both are not the same. You can show that you never really act according to a morality but nonetheless have a „precisely accurate understanding of it“.
Almost all human beings know that it is not good to kill; almost all human beings know that it is not good to steal; almost all human beings know that it is not good to lie; almost all human beings know that it is not good to cheat; almost all human beings know that it is not good to …; … and so on; … - but almost all human beings know too that many human beings act as if they did not know it.
But what, if the fact that this major practical problem is caused by the minor theoretical problem? Then it would be a more theoretical than practical problem. But I am not sure whether this is the case or not.
What do you think? Is it more a practical than a theoretical or more a theoretical than a practical problem?
You managed to separate your body from ‘yourself’ so that you consider your body to be external from ‘you’.
In fact, you also consider your mind to be external from ‘you’. You did just say that, right?
So all actions which cause a (sufficient) pain or pleasure response are bad while all actions that give off leveled or controlled feelings are good…? Former weakens, latter strengthens…?
From this, one re-arranges one’s actions and develops a personal idea of morality? Well, one big problem is that, circumstances or conditions always change, particularly with something as sensitive as the body… Basically, feedback for X can differ in short time spans . . . So, one can’t justify one’s actions for any reliable span of time, certainly not enough to cement it in abstraction (and so, it ultimately becomes like “Reason”). What weakens one today, strengthens one tomorrow. Also, responses are very diverse in quality (some are strange and indescribable), categorizing as pain/pleasure is too narrow . . . and so?
Mind is simply more flexible and can endure the “bad” (as defined above), and affirm it (without distortion) & postpone, that is, it can be above feedback, and even if it fails to do so, in many cases, weakening opens new possibilities of becoming stronger (since chaos can broaden and create). The mind’s rage can and does change the body. After the storm - this is evident.
Exactly. Both my mind (sans “me”) and my body are external to “me”. This “me” referring to that small part of our brains that we designate by the word “will”.
There are many more concepts than there are words. This is why word-to-concept relation is not one-to-one but one-to-many (or rather, many-to-many.)
Yes.
Feedback only applies to actions, it does not apply to their absence. Thus, in unpredictable situations, the solution is to cease to act until you figure out how to act.
There is a difference between one’s own actions and those of the external world. Feedback applies to the former, not to the latter (the way spoiled people think.) When you cease to act, you are at the mercy of the external world, but the important thing is that you are not going against your internal feedback – you are not self-destructive.
Sure, as an “analysis”, I can go along with this.
You note all of the various factors [psychological or otherwise] that need to be taken into account before something in the way of a “consensus” or a “congruence” can emerge.
I merely intertwine this in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
But I’m still not really able to grasp what your own value judgment is here with respect to abortion. And the extent to which you either are or are not 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.
Again, I believe that aborting the unborn is the killing of innocent human beings. And I believe that women [and women alone] should have the political right to do so.
And then when some ask me how I can reconcile this, I tell them that I can’t. That it can’t be reconciled in a Godless universe.
He acknowledges that we [as mere mortals] pretend to know everything. But that we don’t. He acknowledges in turn that “life is a mystery”.
But [apparently] as a mere mortal who does not know everything, life is not mysterious enough to prevent him from asserting that women should not have a choice in the matter unless their health is endangered.
Does he include her mental health?
And was he fully prepared to force women to give birth against their will if the pregnancy was unwanted?
And was he fully prepared to acknowledge the political consequences of this in terms of gender equality out in the real world?
Obviously, it’s all included for the above reasons.
Gender identity and mental health were much more ameliated in they era, for abortions were illegal. Therefore, by definition, the problem was really not a moral one, but a legal and judicious one. The relationship can be asserted as a proportion, wherein it is not the kind where an inverse channeling is involved, but there is a kind of mystery about the way when one is beheld and focused upon, the other one appears to loose importance and validity.
More simply, why bother about morality when legality assures it authoritively. Make it legal, and then it becomes the object of a moral dilemma. The authoritarian object melts away, and the object of the subjective discourse becomes debatable.
Allusion to Jung only in terms of psychosocial, and not particularly political or psychological, per se, unless the debate varientky effects health issues of a mother caught up in a bind. After all, it is her body, her fetus, her life, and everything else is comes from the outside.
She reacts to it as an invasion, because you can’t close up a Pandora’s box, it will only cause malfeasance and a renewal of the market opportunities brought about by illegal abortions.
Right, like, re abortion, the laws that any given community pass regarding legal and illegal behavior are not directly related to behaviors the community [through any particular political consensus] deem to be more or less reasonable, more or less virtuous.
Besides, the point [mine] isn’t that, re abortion, some folks might find particular illegal behaviors moral or particular legal behaviors immoral, but how philosophers are able to establish an argument enabling all rational and virtuous men and women to differentiate right from wrong behavior once a woman finds herself burdened with an unwanted pregnancy.
And then the extent to which any particular opinion held by any particular individual is rooted more in dasein or in an argument that transcends dasein. An argument, in other words, such that however different any particular historical, cultural and experiential context might be, philosophers are able to establish an ethical narrative/agenda that is applicable to all.
It is certainly true that understanding something and complying with that understanding are very different issues. But it should be easy to see that without conscious understanding, compliance is merely accidental and temporary.
A great many during recent decades in the USA have been taught that all of those things are “actually” good, not bad. The only supported moral code is “Don’t get caught”. 
That is actually my position - that without understanding the details, too many errors (aka “sins”) occur such that the practical issue escalates. Errors in understanding compound the practical issue of complying. With detailed understanding, many of the conundrums involved in moral codifying vanish (e.g. the baby on the train track issue).
The goal is certainly the practical application. But for as long as there is a lack of detailed understanding, or worse, misunderstanding, the practical end goal cannot be reached. So the first immediate “problem to solve” is the theoretical one - what is to be attempted.
Further practical issues involve physical and mental capabilities. But again, without the theoretical understanding, those problems are merely compounded. High technology can (and should be) used to resolve those remaining practical problems (and used for no other purpose).
Iambigious: I think I would like to reference you as someone who has objected about the limits of what we can know about objective morality, as that seems to be a common theme in your posts. How would you like to be referenced? As Iambigious or by your real name? If the latter, message it to me.
I would prefer the name iambiguous. It just sounds more like someone who would think what I do.
Also, when you bump into folks you believe are particularly effective in disputing my frame of mind, please send them here. I am always looking for arguments that might actually succeed in yanking me up out of this rather grim and debilitating dilemma.
Sure, I go after the objectivists with a vengeance, but the bottom line remains the same.
1] They have managed to convince themselves that right and wrong, good and evil do in fact exist. Essentially, objectively, naturally, deontologically. If only “in their head”. Consequently, they embody the psychological satisfaction of knowing that, win or lose, they are ever the virtuous ones.
2] Some then link this to God. They manage to convince themselves in turn that should they embody virtue on this side of the grave, they will be judged favorably on the other side. And that grants them access to both immortality and salvation.
None of that is now an option for me. Instead, with respect to value judgments, “I” am hopelessly fractured and fragmented. And creeping ever closer to oblivion.
Daniel , the only reason I’m not reading it is because it’s prohibitively small on a cell phone.
So I’m looking at yours and others statements