I guess we are stuck. I didn’t really Think this part was controversial. It seems inherent in the distinctions you draw around the procedure of an abortion and the morals around the abortion.
WEll, sure. And if all you are doing is essentially playing chess with people, then it could be consistant. It doesn’t come across that way and frankly I don’t really Believe it is merely play for you, but, yes, if it is merely pointless play for you and you know this going in, then it is consistant.
I really don’t Think it is all that mysterious. You don’t like objectivism and you are arguing against it. This is not the stuff of depth psychology. The irony is that it is implicit in your position simulataneously that for all you know it might be a bad thing that you try to change people’s minds. But I will admit the very unlikely possibility that you are just playing. Note: I am not saying that is your only motivation; play, curiosity may also be motives. I couple this with your presentation of what to you seems an impossible situation: how can you interact with people when you are not an objectivist. I say, just do and suggest what you want. And state your opinions as preferences. You are on solid epistemological ground, in your system, and actually most of the time this will not lead to problems. Certainly less problems that telling people they are objectivists and you Think this is a problem.
I mean to me it is like I with a Group and one guy keeps arguing that we stop doing X. he says he Believes - but is not sure - that X is bad. He argues this way for years. I ask if he Thinks he has any way of knowing if it more likely that doing X as a Group leads to more problems than no longer doing X. He says, No, I have no way to know. Then he goes forward trying to convince the Group for Another few years that they should stop doing X.
A bit odd, n’est pas?
Imagine a doctor relating to his clients this way. OK, that’s an authority figure, but it should highlight the strange motivation seemingly invovled somewhere. And without the hierarchy: imagine telling someone that speaking to one’s spouse in way X is a bad idea. You then tell them that you have no way of knowing if they discontinue it will get better worse or the same. Then you go back to telling them you Think it is a bad idea.
Again: when it is suggested you shift to ‘I want’ speech and 'I dislike* speech, you do not find this a good solution, even though it is 1) probably accurate and 2) consistant with your epistemological beliefs about morals.
No, there is no need to make that assumption. I am talking about 1) being honest and 2) being consistant with your epistemology of morals. You claim you cannot know what the good is. You also claim, by extension, that you cannot know if the effects of objectivism are good or bad. So to speak about what you like and dislike remains as what you can communicate about as true.
Sure, but if you read what I wrote, I never said that doing this would solve all the problems. I was pointing out that I could not understand why you don’t do this and why you continue to write about what seems bad to you, GIVEN YOUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS. Why write sometimes like an objectivist when there is this simple, honest and clear way to communicate even about objectivism?
No, you are missing my Point. I am not defending objectivism, I am focused on you. When you argue against objectivists or objectivism, you, according to you, have no idea if the effects of doing this, if successful lead to a better World or not. (or if unsuccessful) Yet you continue. You put effort into an activity that you admit you have no idea if it is doing good or harm, while bemoaning the harm you Think, but have no way of knowing, the objectivists are doing.
I am responding to you. I am not defending objectivism. I am not saying that simply talking about what you want instead of making moral noises will save the World. I am pointing out your strange inconsistancy and then what I Think is a simple, elegant, consistant alternative.
This alternative will not make all the objectivists agree. It will not make the World perfect.
It is about you, based on what you claim you Believe about the epistemology of morals.
If I found a self-proclaimed pacifist hitting poeple with an ax, I might Point out that there is a more consitant behavior for a pacifist.
Imagine my surprise when I Point this out and the pacifist says
how will my not hitting people change the way X, Y and Z mistreat people?
I mean seriously Iamb.