If you are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy how are you not going to choose to either abort it or not abort it?
And if abortion is construed to be a capital crime in your own political jurisdiction and a woman you know has had an abortion how are you not going to choose to either inform the authorities or not?
As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and econonomically there are going to be moral and political conflicts. Right? Now, you can of course choose to go off on your own and live isolated from the rest of humanity. Then morality is moot, isn’t it? Unless, of course, you believe in God.
But most us [for whatever personal reasons] are basically obligated to interact with others such that [eventually] what we want to do will clash with what others want us to do instead. And often over value judgments derived from the actual life that we have lived.
I am simply noting here that when these inevitable conflicts occur, power can dictate the outcome or moderation, negotiation and compromise can be opted for.
Now, pertaining to abortion [or any other moral impasse], what is this “self-evident” good that I am noting? How are my options here not clearly rooted instead in my “dasein dilemma”?
For all you know that might make the world worse.
Do you even grasp the point I am trying to make regarding this frame of mind:
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.
My whole point here is that making the world better or worse by forcing women to give birth or allowing the unborn to die in granting women the right to choose, is ever embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. There is no objective better or worse.
Or, rather, where is the philosophical argument that would suggest otherwise?
I know you can say what you say about dasein and where you come from. I am saying that this ability you have on occasion to do this does not preclude your being an objectivist, and you are one. You can choose to accept that you are one and see why you do in fact think it is alright to draw objective and certain conclusions or you can pretend you are one thing while being another.
Again, if you wish to ascribe my point of view here as just another example of objectivism, fine. But [as I see it] that is just to say that anytime anyone believes a particular argument that they make is a reasonable one, that makes them an objectivist. Yet I clearly note [over and again] how often in the past I have embraced a particular moral/political agenda only to have a new set of experiences, relationships, ideas etc. come along and upend it. And I certainly don’t exclude moral nihilism here.
But where is the argument now that convinces me to move on? Yet no matter what I might move on to I will still have folks like you claiming that I am an objectivist. As though there is absolutely no distinction to be made between the inherent ambiguity embedded in my views on the morality of abortion and those on either side of the issue who insist that [re either God or Reason] their agenda reflects the one true objective good.