Public Information?

And the subjectivist believes that there is no clear distinction between moral and immoral behavior?
Ouch.

And the post after that may again change your mind.

How can you be trusted?

At any moment you may hear an argument which convinces you that slitting throats is appropriate. You instantly become a bloodthirsty murderer.

Are you not a puppet to any charismatic leader with the gift of rhetoric?

I addressed this above:

[b]And [for me] relativism revolves around the assumptions embedded in what I have come to call the “dasein dilemma”. This:

If I am of the opinion that 1] my own moral/political values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective moral/political values “I” can reach [in a world of conflicting goods], then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am acknowledging that I might have – or might just as well have – gone in another direction instead.[/b]

What I am waiting for is an argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate to me why this is not a reasonable way in which to construe the relationship between 1] the manner in which we come to acquire an identity and 2] the manner in which one might approach opposing moral/political agendas in a world of conflicting goods.

Any number of folks have already rationalized this behavior. Perhaps in the name of God [ridding the world of infidels] or perhaps because they have come to conclude that in a world without God fulfilling their own wants and needs is all the justification they need to do anything.

So, where is the philosophical argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate that either of these moral agendas is necessarily irrational?

Do you have one? One that isn’t based on whatever it is you happen to believe [here and now] “in your head” is moral or immoral?

Please answer the question:

How can you be trusted?

Your actions are based on how convincing the latest argument was … your behavior is built on shifting sand.

No, obviously, I cannot be trusted. Not with respect to my moral and political value judgments. And, more to the point, [u]I cannot even trust myself[/u].

And for all of the reasons I have expressed above with respect to what I construe to be the dilemma inherent in dasein.

Consider:

Suppose Bob gets a call from Sally asking if he would be willing to drive her to a Planned Parenthood clinic next week. She is scheduled to get an abortion.

He’s pro-choice, so he says that he will.

Well, suppose in the interim, he does have a new experience or he does come into contact with a new argument that convinces him that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

My point is that trust with respect to value judgments will always be problematic because we never really know what might happen to change our minds. Also, that there is no way in which we can be certain objectively which behaviors are necessarily right and wrong. Or, rather, I have not come across a way.

Shit, I still remember the enormous gap between my moral and political value judgments before and after I spent a year as a soldier in Vietnam. Before I was absolutely certain about the morality of many things [and rooted it in God]. After I was just as certain that those things were immoral [and rooted it in Reason].

But at least back then I still believed that there was a way to make an objective distinction.

It seems that your only stability comes from inertia. You heard some arguments and these form your beliefs. If someone comes along with another argument then you will hang on to your previous belief because of inertia. If the argument is strong enough to overcome your inertia, then you will adopt the new belief.
An objectivist would change if a new belief seemed to be closer to some objective truth. A subjectivist changes because of the quality of the argument and not some reference to objective reality. For him, there is no objectively better POV - all are equal.

phyllo, would you not be persuaded by a strong argument?

Trust is at the discretion of the person allocating trust.

The living can’t be trusted to stay the same, but they can be trusted to change in predictable fashions.

One can predict the odds, and go from there.

I think it’s only fair to expect us to act to the best of our knowledge. Ignorance is a fundamental aspect of existence, and it’s only expected we make mistakes - but inaction can just as easily be a mistake.

We’re thrown into an environment where we’re forced to make choices - to place bets, even if it’s the choice to resist making other choices.

We’re all puppets.

It goes way deeper than just to other people.

==

You are something. You are many things.

All these things influence you.

Everything you do is true, but not everything is ideal for you.

To act in a way that harms you - undermines that which you are, your highest priorities - to act this way is not neutral to you. You could act this way, but there’s clear reason why you wouldn’t. It’s not all ‘just as well’ to the bias living organism.

Your body. Your mind. Your environment.

These are - they’re beyond moral and immoral.

They create moral and immoral. They create the interest to differentiate between the two. They’re the source of all questioning.

To ignore them, is to self-sabotage.

You were born into a war, a victim before you could even speak.

I do not think that i am an exception. On the contrary, i think a majority of people follow that methodology, may be not in the anonymity on internet forums but certainly in the real world.

A very common example is voting pattern. People keep changing their preferences with time and circumstances for candidates and parties too. Is it not the change of objective judgments by millions of people continuously? And also, do people marry, divorce and marry with other partners again and again? Is that also not another example of changing objective opinion by millions of people on regular basis?

That is true. And, that will always be the difference between objectivist and relativist. A true Objectivist will always keep looking for better alternatives. He will judge those of the benchmark of rationality and logic and will amending himself for the better. And, i do not see anything wrong in it.

On the other hand, a relativist will never able to decide what is wrong or right, thus there is no scope of betterment. I do not see it as a better alternative for objectivism.

There are many. Firstly, i became complete theist from agnostic or soft atheist about 20 years back. But, i cannot give you proof of that to you here. Thus, i am providing something that happened at ILP itself.

And, you can see that i accepted without any hesitation that i was wrong. My ego cannot stop me for to change for the better, if i ever find any.

Yes, that may happen again. So what? What is a big deal in it? I will opt for better alternative again. But, i will not keep judgment pending if i think that i have enough to take a call. Of course, i may be wrong. But, as i am open to challenge and change, my wrong perceptions would be challenged and corrected too with the time. Thus, with every amendment, i will move one step closer to pure objectivity. That is precisely what science does. The science also follows objectivism, not relativism. Otherwise, it would never able to progress.

imb, the the problem comes when someone thinks that no one but he can be right only and stop listening others. That is what stops improvement.

In that case, by definition, you are an objectivist, not relativist. As soon as you form as opinion, you become objectivist by default. It does not matter whether you are open for the change or not.

If you are open to change, you are a good objectivist, otherwise a bad one, but objectivist in either case. I true relativist will never form an opinion, whether temporary or permanent. Relativism simply means no objective opinion can be formed ever.

with love,
sanjay

Yes but the trust is based on the consistent behavior of the other person. You don’t trust someone who does change or could change unpredictably.

The way Iambig was posted makes me question why we should believe that would change in a predictable fashion. I mean if, as he says, there is ‘no clear distinction between moral and immoral’ , then he could easily switch.

That’s not really true, is it? There is a great deal of personal choice and autonomous behavior.

A strong argument is more persuasive than a weak one. :smiley:

I like to believe that I won’t be swayed by slick talk and that I will always look for the concrete evidence which supports the argument.

That’s what it comes down to : there is some objective reality that the argument is articulating. That is the reason for and basis of morality. There is a difference between moral and immoral.

Yeah, you can be wrong it, but you strive to be right.

I have no stability. Isn’t that the whole point of dasein’s dilemma? I recognize the obvious: that a new experience, relationship, source of informantion etc. might be the catalyst persuading me to change my mind about any particular value judgment. And, that, which ever direction my values go [existentially], there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to persuade me that any one particular value judgment is true objectively. In other words, that one can acquire a deontological ethics.

[u][b]Even Kant recognized the need for God here[/u][/b].

I merely suggest further that this is also true for others. Including you.

And inertia is precisely the source here for most folks. They go about their life from day to day merely assuming that what they have been taught [or taught themselves] about right and wrong [via God or Reason] is what is objectively true. They certainly don’t think about these things in terms of dasein, cvonflicting goods or political economy, right?

Yes, the objectivist might do that. But in so doing she would be acknowledging this:

1] I once thought that X was true objectively…but now I think that Y is.
2] So, perhaps, I will have a new experience, meet new people, come upon new sources of knowledge etc. and believe instead that Z is true objectively.

Instead, many objectivists are able to talk themselves into believing that, no, this time, I really have found the objective moral or political truth.

And, no, a subjectivist does the best she can in weighing as many factors as she can before taking that existentential leap to one side or the other.

Again, you and I have been over this on another thread with respect to abortion. You claimed that your own argument reflected what you construed to be an objective resolution to the conflicting goods I proposed: the right of the unborn to live vs. the right of women not to be forced to give birth.

I approach this quandary precisely from the dilemma embedded in dasein. I took my political leap to feminism. But that meant accepting the fact that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of unborn humn beings would be destroyed every year. But the only alternative is to force thousands upon thousands upon thousands of women to give birth against their will.

How is this dilemma to be resolved objectively, deontologically? What was your own argument? It slips my mind.

Again, based on my own experience, most moral and political objectivists are cut from the same cloth that folks like Ayn Rand and James Saint were/are: my way or the highway. There are many such objectivists right here at ILP. Think Erik, Lys, Magnun and their ilk.

Me, I am always less interested in whatever particular VO they claim reflects the objective truth and more in the manner in which their values are [more or less] rooted in this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Which is then [in my view] rooted largely in this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

As I see it, most objectivists are able to talk themselves into believing that while they once believed X, they now believe Y. They were wrong before but now they are right. But the very things that prompted them to change their minds [new experiences, relationships, sources of information…new ways of connecting them introspectively] are still “out in the world” waiting for them.

The world is no less brimming with contingency, chance and change, right? But, in my view, because the “objective trith” here is rooted [for them] more in human psychology than in whatever the parameters of logic might be pertaining to conflicting value judgments, they are able to convince themselves that no, this time, this time, they really have found the whole objective truth.

It is this “intellectual contraption” they must preserve at all cost.

That’s true. The emotional and psychological sense of certainty is not available to the subjectivist. At least with respect to moral and political values. And in the construction of an identity. That will always be embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In my opinion, of course.

But basically you’re argument here is [to me] analogous to the religionist who says much the same thing in differentialting those who believe and do not believe in God. But how does that make the actual existence of his God any more substantial? How does pointing to the “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” that the moral relativists must endure, make for a definitive argument that objective morality exists?

We are back again to Barrett:

For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. [u]The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.[/u]

[u]My emphasis[/u]. Barrett is simply noting why objectivists embrace that frame of mind. It allows them to reduce this “agony of choice” down to either/or.

It’s just that my own “dasein dilemma” is even more radical still. For Barrett still seems to leave room for making distinctions between good and evil. Whereas from my own point of view, that can only be an exchange of subjective opinions.

So what? Well, we don’t live forever do we? And [in my view] we have no access to a transcending point of view [which most call God] whereby we can finally determine once and for all which of the thousands upon thousands of “objective” moral and political truths embraced by thousands upon thousand of individual daseins is the one true truth.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that you keep searching for an even more rational argument and whichever one you have acquired before you die becomes…becomes what exactly?

And what does your argument here have to do with the choices we make relating to the reality of human interactions from day to day? In other words, anyone might embrace your “methodology” here and still arrive at hopelessly conflicting and contadictory value judgments, right? It’s just that some do this via God and religion and others via Reason and science. But the conflicting behaviors [like the conflicting goods] never go away, do they?

But: With reason and science either/or is embedded smack dab in the middle of the laws of nature. No one argues that these laws are not what they ought to be morally and politically.

It’s just that with folks like you and James, religion and science are somehow integrated. They seem to be intertwined “in your heads”. But I have not been successful as of yet in getting either one of you to connect this dot to the one revolving around actual conflicting value judgments “down here”. Re issues like abortion and homosexuality.

This would be true only if I were to argue that how I view these relationships is how everyone else should view them too. But I clearly acknowledge that this is merely how I think about them here and now; and that, given all that might unfold in my life from day to day, I might come not to believe it at all. Now, if you wish to argue that this makes me an objectivist too, fine, that is your perogative. Let’s just say that I do not agree. Again, here and now.

Have you successfully explained the internet to your cat?

Back to the twaddle. Back to the glop. :frowning:

Hell, I’ll bet it doesn’t even embarrass you anymore. :wink:

Oh, and I dare you to take on Lys. :laughing:

But, you are forgetting that there are many such relativists here too, who becomes relativist while dealing with moral issues but becomes pure objectivist when it comes to economical issues. Do i have to name those?

Secondly, this relativity exists mainly on the internet discussions. Everybody dealing with the real world has to be objective more or less, otherwise he cannot survive even a day in the real world.

Doubt or suspend judgment only when it is required, not in every case. That will be suicidal.

It is true but that is how life goes. And, that is precisely how this mankind has been evolved. There is nothing wrong in that either. Had apes or homo-sapiens would have waited for true objective perceptions to evolve as you are suggesting, odds are in the favor of that all members of the ILP would have roaming bare foot in the jungles in the search of fruits instead of having this internet discussion.

Are you ready to be subjective to that extent? Or, only in complicated issues and ready to make a call while dealing with ordinary issues? Make up your mind.

That may be true in cases but true objectivism has nothing to do with either ego or convenience.

On the contrary, most of the subjectivists use the argument of subjectivism as a shield to hide their personal lust behind. A very die hard supporter of moral subjectivism takes a U-turn and becomes complete objectivist when it comes to the issues like minimum wages and social welfare. In such cases, they discard their subjectivity completely and plead for a certain position. I can point out many discussions at ILP, in you want.

Just opposite to your perception of objectivists in general, I found that most of the subjectivists are not true subjectivists by heart. It is merely a matter of convenience for them. They use subjectivism just to oppose such established practices/morality which they do not like personally. They try to force their objectivity wrapped in the cover of subjectivity.

This gentleman has got it all wrong. He is trying to ride the horse from the tail side assuming that his position is right and it is the horse who is running from the wrong side.

[u]An objectivist is open to only to one mistake, and that is objectivity itself. If he is honest and reasonably patient with his objectivity, that is more than enough. Nothing else is required. Yes, even doing that, he still can make a wrong call but that is acceptable and excusable. Because, that is the only best logical solution available under the circumstances. It may not be the perfect one, but the best among the lot for sure, and certainly better from not able to decide and living the in the confusion all the time at all issues.

The problem arises only when objectivists leave the principle of objectivity and become subjective by intent. That is when ego steps in from the backdoor and people started to consider their subjective opinion as an objective one and stop listening to others. Then, finding the true objective opinion takes a back seat and the whole focus shifts on not conceding to anyone on anything. That is simply egoism, not objectivity[/u].

Coming to Barrett, his assertion that objectivist fear from confrontation is utterly wrong. Actually, it is subjectivists, who fear from confrontation, not objectivists. If you look at the history of the mankind, you will find that most of strong characters were objectivist, not subjectivist. But, remember that i am not saying that they all made right choices throughout. Certainly not. But, they never fear to make a call even in the odds.

On the other hand, you will never see a subjectivist taking the lead. They are undecided people by definition and intent, thus will never raise their hand on any issue. They will never take a decision when it is required but will be first to criticize whatever it may be. They consider opposing everything as their intellectual birthright.

Actually, we live forever, though not in person but by the virtue of our thoughts left behind. Do we not discuss the thoughts of past philosophers today and try to judge and amend them? Is that not a living forever?

[b]That why it is necessary to make a call with the best of the knowledge that we have at the moment, if necessary. That should not be kept pending in the situation demands. That may not be perfect but will be judged by others in the future, have to face criticism and would be amended continuously, and every time for the better. And, one day it would attain ultimate objectivity.

On the other hand, if we start pending the judgment on every issue considering that we are unable to find true objective solution now, that situation will never change and will lead to some kind of inertia in the knowledge[/b].

So, which option is better?
Or, can you offer any better solution than what i offered? I am ready to accept that.

imb, you need to understand a very simple truth that, all the knowledge that the mankind has been gathered so far, has come from the simple trial and error method. And, we continuously carry this legacy forward for further refinement. As we are not born enlightened, thus there is no other way whatsoever in which we can accumulate further. If we stop trying in the fear of error, mankind will come to stand still.

Is that what you want?

Okay. Forget about my definition, we will discuss it later.
What is your definition of a true subjectivist?

with love,
sanjay

Then you should call them on that. The tricky part here though is the same. Whether with respect to a moral issue like abortion and capital punishment or an economic issue like the merits of socialism and the implications of crony capitalism, there are going to be facts able to be established as true objectively. Fine. But then there is the matter of how those facts are interpreted within the context of a particular moral framework. In other words, one in which particular behaviors are said to be either right or wrong depending on how one reacts [subjectively] to the objective facts as they come to be situated in actual social, political and economic contexts.

Yes, and my point is to note that this is how “life goes” with respect to your [u][b]own[/u][/b] moral and political values as well. How then does one trascend this is order to establish what are instead objective moral and political values? And most folks do this either ecclesiastically [religiously] through God or secularly [ideologically] through Reason. Either way though they invariably embrace this as an authoritarian font from which to assess and to judge any conflicts.

And apes and early humanoids did not pursue these relationships through denominational religion or objectivist political dogmas.

Also, my arguments do not reflect the manner in which most “subjectivists” here approach these relationships. Where, after all, do they make mention of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? Let alone, the manner in which I intertwine them “out in the world”.

And here, in my view, we arrive at the [u][b]crux[/u][/b] of the matter: [b]the manner in which you make abstract arguments like this but then fail to situate the points out in the the world of actual conflicting human behaviors[/b].

Again: Barrett’s argument seems quite relevant with respect to abortion. Some people [subjectively] see the birth of the baby as the chief Good. Others [subjectively] see allowing women the right to choose as the chief good. Then there are moral objectivists on both sides of the issue. In other words, if you don’t agree with them, you are wrong.

But a subjectivist [my subjectivist, not yours] argues that any particular individual’s point of view here is derived from dasein. And that these points of view reflect the assumptions embedded in the argument that embraces either the birth of the baby or the woman’s right to choose.

And, in my view, it’s the same for all other conflicting value judgements in which individual daseins are predisposed [existentially] to embrace particular subjective points of view that endorse one or another “side” of an issue.

But either side’s arguments don’t make the arguments of the other side go away. Not necessarily.

Go ahead, pick any context in which human behaviors come into conflict out in the world and we can pursue our arguments more substantively, more substantially.

If you are actually able to convince yourself that you will “live forever” because your thoughts will continue on after you are dead and gone, fine. Whatever works. But most folks seek their consolation here through God and Religion. And in that respect you are like most folks, right?

Thus you are able to convince yourself that “the true objective solution” will be ascertained objectively then. So, sure, you can be more dismissive of the part in the interim. The part where the conflicts unfold here and now.

And I am more than willing to concede that I certainly do not have a “better solution”. In fact, the whole point of my own argument here is rooted in my “dasein dilemma”. There are no objective solutions. Or none that I have come upon.

Understand this simple truth? This is precisely the point I am trying to make: that, historically, cullturally and experientially, individuals are “thrown” into particular worlds that revolve largely around the argument I am making here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What you seem to argue however is [to me] analogous to Hegel: the final synthesis ends with you. You and your God. You and your value judgments.

In other words, what it means for folks to become more “enlightened” or more “refined” is to end up thinking about things like homosexuality as you do. Or to think about revealing public information as James does. Or so it seems to me. Here and now.

What I “want” here is an argument form you [from anyone] that is able to demonstrate to me that how I think of conflicting value judgments as rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is not ultimately the existential embodiment of the dilemma embedded in dasein.

A “true” subjectivist? Do you mean the objective subjectivist? And this speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. I have explained to you [with respect to revealing public information or any other moral conflict] how I diferentiate objective truths from subjective points of view.

How is the manner in which I think about this not rational?

Why don’t you guys start your own thread for that discussion?

Our exchange seems to be the thread now, James.

Also, I did note in my last post the issue of public information:

A “true” subjectivist? Do you mean the objective subjectivist? And this speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. I have explained to you [with respect to revealing public information or any other moral conflict] how I differentiate objective truths from subjective points of view.

But, sure, I’ll create a new thread for you. I don’t want you complaining to the moderator that we are just “trolling” here. Or trying to hijack the thread.

zinnatt13,

I have created a new thread if you wish to continue this exchange. Though [when push comes to shove] it’s really just basically our other exchange, right? Only with less emphasis on God and religion.