otto west and iambiguous discuss morality here, not there

So, you want to start with the subject of abortion? You know I’m a moral nihilist, right?

Okay let me sum up abortion, the weak, stupid, and irresponsible remove themselves from the gene pool, nothing of value was lost. What kind of prize do I win Iambiguous for my answer?

There are of course consequences for mass abortion on any given society but somehow I don’t think your concern is with any of that in discussion.

And Iambig thought that he would have a discussion. :laughing:

I think that I tackled abortion on a number of occasions but … “you were not convinced”.

That’s pretty much your “refutation” of all the arguments. =D>

I prefer to skip all long winded useless complexities and go straight to the basic core of issues.

I don’t need to write a three page dissertation on everything.

Progress. At least we have established that morality is in principle objective. We now need to figure out which of the moral positions is right, wrong … close to the mark or far off.

Moral judgements are not an impediment to action. One can chose to be immoral and take the consequences, so not everyone needs your “righteous pills”. I wonder what the demand might be for such a product. There is actually an advantage to moral uncertainty and ambiguity. Similarly there is an advantage to doubts about the existence of God.

Okay, we both call ourselves a “moral nihilist”. Now, with respect to abortion [and to all other conflicting goods] my own understanding of that is rooted existentially in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

How about you? What sequence of experiences, relationships and sources of information etc., predisposed you to become a moral nihilist?

In other words, let’s probe the extent to which your own moral and political narratives are more “intellectual contraptions” or “existential contraptions”.

Re abortion, you believe this:

You’re serious, aren’t you?

Okay, making that assumption, how does one go about the task of making a credible distinction between those unborn babies that either do or do not qualify to be aborted?

Is your answer here rooted more in the assumption that all reasonable men and women will share your own political prejudices, or that your own political prejudices are rooted more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of individual daseins interacting socially, politically and economically out in a particular is/ought world?

In other words, to what extent do you acknowledge that your moral and political values “here and now” are just “existential contraptions” rooted in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change? And, thus, that given new experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., you may well come to reject what you believe here and now and embrace an entirely conflicting point of view.

Because that is the crucial distinction that I make between a moral nihilist and a moral objectivist.

Not that one set of values is right and another set of values is wrong, but that right and wrong itself seem ever embedded in conflicting goods derived existentially from a particular life lived out in a particular world. And ever governed by the reality of political power. Not who may or may not be right, but who has the power to enforce their own perceived interests.

Which are of course [from my way of thinking] no less existential contraptions. Or, as Nietzsche once intimated, the opposite of truth may well be less a lie than a conviction.

Moral and political convictions in particular.

Note just one.

And my point of course revolves not around the claims folks make regarding the tackles that they have made, but the extent to which they argue in turn that if you don’t tackle it as they do then you are wrong.

Also, situate your own reaction to abortion [as a moral issue] in an actual existential trajectory – like the one I noted above.

And for folks like you, the claim is made that God has also noted the “tackles” you have made on this side of the grave. And that’s comforting because there’s that part on the other side of the grave that folks like me and Otto, well, don’t actually believe in.

You don’t, do you Mr West?

And I acknowledge over and again that exchanges of this sort always revolve around any particular “I” [embodied in dasein] being “convinced” in the “here and now”.

I’m not suggesting that if I am not convinced that makes you wrong, only that what you are convinced of here and now resides “in your head”; more so than embedded in an argument that can be demonstrated to be true objectively for all of us.

Note to others:

Make of this boast what you will. :smiley:

Yes, I do agree with this.

There may well be an argument that does in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind here. I have never denied that.

I only note that with respect to a conflicting good like abortion, if such an argument were ever to be established it would sweep the world like a tsunami. And not just among philosophers. Imagine, an argument that establishes definitively whether abortion either is or is not immoral. And either universally for all abortions or individually one abortion at a time.

And even here I acknowledge that it may exist. I only note that “I” myself have not come across it. Or that, if I have, “I” was not convinced of it.

Then what?

Well, if an omniscient/omnipotent God does in fact exist, He knows. And that does settle it once and for all.

Or…

Human interactions may well be just another manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Or…

The moral narratives of autonomous mortals in a Godless universe may well be embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And it’s that frame of mind the objectivists seem most discomfited regarding.

Just not you, right?

On the contrary, moral judgments embodied by those in power can precipitate all manner of consequences. Women who choose to abort their babies [along with the doctors who abort them] can be charged with murder. They can be thrown in prison. And, if those in power deem abortion to be “first degree murder”, they might even end up on death row. Where those in power who embrace capital punishment as a moral judgment will execute them.

And all because folks like you insist that there really is a way to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors.

For example, their way.

James, I’m good with absolutes, so I’ll take this.

Rewarding non-consensual sex with assured pregnancy positively re-enforces non consensual birth into reality - that life is always about non-consent.

This is self refuting.

Let’s look at consent and birth, if something happens that was a consequence with respect to sex, retroactively, the consent was violated. Thus all unwanted pregnancies are rape.

Let’s look further.

We know that on the span of a lifetime, each fertile woman can have 52 children. Each fertile woman not having 52 REAL lives, is an abortionist.

So, Im ismbiguous world all women should be raped and forced to have 52 children each.

Iambiguous states that this isn’t an issue (consent) because there is no morality.

Iambiguous, let me give you advice on ethics…

I’ve been to hell. You not only don’t want to be there, you don’t want to be there forever …

So stop trying to show off as the bad ass non-moralist … seriously, it’s not good for your health.
You know what happens to the assholes that say there’s no morality?? Every demon in existence crawls out of the woodwork and eternally damns you, you know why ? Because you always forgive them. “It’s not a problem”

I speak from billions of years of experience, and to this day, I’m still gathering memories …,

My personal experience, with the logical evidence I supplied: stop it!

Women get abortions even when it’s illegal and immoral. People steal. People kill. People commit adultery.

They’re willing to take the risk.

Yeah, it’s because of people like me that there are so many problems in the world. If only there were no values or judgements, then we would be living in paradise. :smiley:

“Anything and everything is okay”. That’s the solution.

Basically there are a variety of constantly changing views out there concerning humanity and its evolution where there is no singular right or wrong criteria to them objectively as the universe doesn’t hand out objectives in of itself (people create objectives not the other way around), however the survival of a belief, value, or perception often requires power to enforce them where the value of belief can also depend on the beneficial relationship with those that adhere to it. If the belief is unbeneficial in terms of survival it loses value or validity.

If there was a group of people that thought it was morally justifiable to kill themselves in mass we can say it wasn’t of much value in that the adherents of that belief are all dead or in the process of dying. It’s not that suicide in mass is wrong but that it negates survival or existential being of the individuals involved. The belief becomes an evolutionary dead end and thereby loses all of its valuation. Once again survival is the metric of all valuations where morality is a residual fictional illusion people delude themselves in. The will to power is the will to survival and vice versa where from it all created valuations stem or revolve from.

Objectivism is like this childlike belief that human beings can somehow master and understand all of reality becoming its sole interpreter. The problem with this is that reality or the universe gives us very little to nothing at all to interpret where everything is self created conjecture. We live in a very subjective universe but not all subjective perceptions, valuations, or visualizations are equal in that some are more successful than others. Some subjective perceptions, valuations, and visualizations are dead ends. In this regard competition is always present as much of human behavior or interaction is. I call this competitive subjectivism, it’s how one thought or idea gains hegemony over all others. It’s not that it is objective but rather its power gains the most traction and is thoroughly pervasive in terms of embracing by people.

Yes, but the focus of this thread is to explore the extent to which folks do what they do because 1] they feel obligated morally to do so or 2] they concern themselves more with the consequences of getting caught by those convinced that particular behaviors are in fact the “wrong thing to do”.

Sure, there are those who feel that certain behaviors are immoral but do them anyway. Why? Because for one or another reason they are able to rationalize it. Including aborting their unborn babies. Maybe they feel it is wrong to kill unborn babies but their own unborn baby was as a result of rape; or it will come into the world with some affliction; or they are convinced that if they sincerely repent to God they will be forgiven.

The actual contextual permutations that any one of us might find ourselves in “out in the world” – out in a particular world viewed from a particular point of view – are practically endless.

After all, what do we really know of the experiences that others might have – experiences entirely at odds with our own?

You argue this, but I can scarcely imagine how you could possibly believe this is true given the length and breadth of our exchanges here.

I would never suggest that we are better off living in a world without values and judgments. Note a single instance where I have argued this. Instead, I argue that value judgments are a necessary component in a world where “rules of behavior” are fundamental to sustaining least dysfunctional human interactions. I merely argue that “here and now” I construe any particular individual values as embodied in existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I in turn construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And ever and always out in a particular world [historically, culturally and experientially] of contingency chance and change.

And that as a result of having “thought” myself into believing that this is true “in my head” “here and now” I am impaled on my dilemma above.

So the question is the extent to which your own moral values are derived from a different set of assumptions. The extent to which my own predicament is not applicable to you. As that pertains to a particular set of behaviors that you have chosen in interacting with others.

You claim to have gone there. But certainly not in the manner in which I construe the meaning of “going there”. And that is embedded in my existential trajectory above.

Yes, for all practical purposes, given an historical overview of human interactions to date, this is an entirely reasonable frame of mind.

Or so it seems to me. Here and now.

But:

As I interpret it, this “power to enforce” a particular political agenda is best rooted in “democracy and the rule of law” — in moderation, negotiation and compromise.

As opposed to “might makes right” or “right makes might”.

Now, what some folks do is to argue that Nietzsche had it right. Philosopher kings of the liberal “humanistic” school [like religious leaders] are ruled out because basically they become tools of the weak to emasculate the strong. Instead, the ubermen, who are more in sync with the one true understanding of human nature, not only prevail over the weak but ought to prevail over the weak.

And then there are the usual assumptions attached here regarding gender roles, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

They key component intertwining them all however is one or another rendition of this:

1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
3] “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature

I call them objectivists. And, from my frame of mind, what makes them embrace that frame of mind is in turn embedded in one or another psychological rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

Again, I think that this is an entirely reasonable way in which to think about human life and death. My point is only that there are others able to construct conflicting narratives that, given a different set of assumptions, are also reasonable. And that my frame of mind then revolves around the extent to which they argue in turn that their own narrative is [necessarily] most in sync with God and/or Reason and/or Nature.

In other words, that you are either “one of us” in sharing it, or you are wrong.

Where things get tricky here however is that there are any number of components embedded in human interactions that seem entirely objective in nature. Mathematics, the laws of physics, the empirical world around us, the logical rules of language.

In fact things can become rather “spooky” when you consider that the “is/ought” world may well in turn be entirely objective. But only because human moral narratives themselves are embodied in an illusion of autonomy in a wholly determined world.

Lack of consistency is a recurring problem in your posts. One day you don’t know how to figure out what is “good” and the next day you are promoting moderation, democracy and rule of law … as if those are “good” in some way or “better” than for example extremism, despotism and lawlessness.

It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it. Or you’re just wasting time with babble. Or maybe you enjoy the idea that people can’t pin you down.

But I acknowledge that in promoting democracy and the rule of law this is no less an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which over the years “I” came to be predisposed to view these things.

Once I was an objectivist myself regarding these relationships. Embracing either the Bible or the Communist Manifesto. Or the political philosophy of [among others] Leon Trotsky.

Then I happened upon William Barrett’s Irrational Man. That introduced me to “rival goods”. Richard Rorty then introduced me to “ironism”. Then, over still more time, this all became intertwined in the manner in which I came to construe the meaning of Heidegger’s Dasein.

And here “I” am. Acknowledging in turn that given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge “I” may reconfigure again.

Thus my point here is the attempt to pin down those aspects of human interaction that transcend dasein. Things able to be established as in fact true for all of us.

And I would certainly not argue that this includes democracy and the rule of law. Any number of objectivists stil hold it in contempt.

Right?

It’s just that “here and now” “I” see it as “the best of all possible worlds”.

Yet that doesn’t make my dilemma above go away.

Yes, this was more or less Moreno’s argument. And it’s a good one.

Indeed, I will be the first to admit that “in the moment” [subjunctively] when “I” am making my arguments, it “feels” nothing at all like being predisposed to particular leaps of faith. Leaps of faith embodied in particular political prejudices.

Yet I am no less impaled on my dilemma when I pull back and try to think it all through to The Right Answer.

And what I enjoy is polemics. And yet somehow subjunctively even that seems to be entangled “in my head” in this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles

I just have no illusion that these enormously complex and convoluted “frames of mind” will ever be pinned down definitively such that “I” will finally grasp once and for all what this is really all about.

You know, in the is/ought world.

Not just an existential contraption but a contraption which is incompatible with your other contraption - moral nihilism.

Which one to use when confronted with an issue? And why?

Why have both of them?

Biguous is one of those people, many people, who have an unrealistic, you can also say an idealistic, understanding of how intelligence works.

God is dead they say and then they remain stuck in a vague feeling of what is right and what is wrong but why bother with anything.
Taking a position, having objectives means you might fail or you could be proven wrong.
Much better to hide your aspirations, even from yourself on a certain level, to not face potential failure.

Stand for nothing and thus don’t expose yourself to any attacks.

“human interactions that transcend dasein” - What a bizarre idea. It seems that every aspect of every interaction has to be tied into dasein. How can it not be so?

What is common to the interaction is humans with a particular biology and therefore particular needs and drives. (Even that does not transcend dasein because human biology has evolved and will evolve, so the “time element” of dasein is always there.)

Let do an example how morality might work:

We can come up with a philosophical principle based such as “Life is valuable”. Humans and other animals seem to want stay alive.

Let’s say there is a planet with two islands. One (Island L) has low reproductive rates due to some chemicals in the local food (but they don’t know the reason). The other (Island H) has high reproductive rates to the point that resources are becoming scarce.

What would be the morality of abortion on these islands?

It makes sense to make abortion immoral (and illegal) on Island L in order to prevent complete extinction of life.

It makes sense to make abortion moral on Island H in order to have enough resources to feed the current population.

Both are evaluating their particular situation based on the “transcending” principle that “Life is valuable”. They are in sync with “human needs”.

Of course, there are other possible moralities of abortion on these islands. How much are they meeting human needs? Does a principle that says “Abortion is always wrong” make sense? Can one reasonably apply such a principle without looking at the specific situation? I don’t think so.