Hey, don’t you owe me about a billion rebuttals on the “discussing god and religion” thread? I’m sensing a pattern here… :-"
I have to be honest though: I really don’t have a fucking clue [this time] as to what in tarnation you are trying to convey here.
My point [re the OP] is not that individuals either are or are not fallible. Rather it is to suggest that in the absense of God [or your own pantheistic contraption] mere mortals [if they are being honest with themselves] are, like me, 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.
But even here I fully acknowledge how this is necessarily embedded in the manner in which [b][u]I[/b][/u] have come to understand the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods.
And since interpreting them as I do precipitates a rather glum manner in which to construe conflicting human behaviors [and the nature of identity], I am always looking for an argument that might extricate me from that.
Just not yours.
Anyway, it is to escape the “agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” that the sacred and the secular objectivists invent their Gods and their “metaphysical” morality.