Okay, let’s assume you do know considerably more [philosophically] about the technical meaning of being logical in discussing capital punishment. Give us some examples of how you might instruct the protesters at Huntsville in grappling with the difference between being logical, being rational and being moral in regard to the particular execution about to take place.
Other then by way of yet another “general description” “analysis”.
For me, everything here revolves around the gap between what you think you know is true about it “in your head”, and what you are able to demonstrate is true about it to those you would deem to be reasonable men and women.
There would seem to come a time when you would have to acknowledge the limitations of “being logical” in the discussion. Which all of us would agree on. The part where only the language is critiqued vs. the part where the words intertwine with the world and the critiques become what I construe to be more or less “existential contraptions”.
And, for me, that revolves largely around the conflicting goods, derived from dasein out in a particular world where what you think you know is true may well butts heads with those who have the actual political power to enforce their own [conflicting] moral agenda.
In my view, you can’t turn to the folks here who embrace Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or Kant for the one size fits all answer. Or, rather, so it seems to me. No moral obligations, just the obligation to be in sync with the rules of language.
But it’s the part about what one “ought to do” here that by far generates the most controversy and conflict.
You tell me: how would you make that distinction for the opposing camps protesting outside the Huntsville unit in Texas?
Most likely I wouldn’t, but if I got into a discussion and it felt OK, then it might be somewhat like the above.
My guess: a lot of people will be scratching their heads.
Then those on both sides hit you with arguments like this: deathpenalty.procon.org/view.re … eID=002000
Then they pummel you with endless facts [and interpretations of the facts] with regard to this particular execution. Then you can either be an objectivist here or a pragmatist.
Pragmatism as you understand it, pragmatism as I do.
Meanwhile the one thing that everyone can agree on is this: the prisoner is either executed or not.
And the execution itself is neither logical or illogical. But [of course] that’s not at all what motivates people to protest for or against it.
Or is your own “general description” “intellectual contraption” here reserved only for those able to discuss “rationalism” analytically, scholastically, academically. In the hallowed halls as it were.
What fucking contraption?
The one that makes sense to me as a description of your “assessment” here but makes considerably less sense to you.
If, philosophically, rationalism “is the epistemological view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge” apply that to the political conflagrations that revolve around state executions.
Why?
Because there will be conflicting assessments regarding which rendition of being reasonable ought to be “the chief source and test of knowledge” regarding this particular execution.
Ah, but forget about folks actually being executed and the relevancy of logic and rational thought and morality in discussing it. Instead, the problem here is really me:
You respond AS IF everything is just for you and what you demand for answers and you just it as failing for you and that it should be judged that way. Even here, when I am clearly posting to a third party. This can be very irritating, though here I am grateful to you for giving me an exactly and perfect example of what I told Faust it was like to be responded to by you.
I know you think I get irritated at you because I fear the hole. That you trigger what it would be like without whatever contraptions you hallucinate I have. That’s irritating too. there is such an obvious interpersonal, consistent and repeated irritation in the way you respond and/or often do not respond at all, as if you hadn’t even read it.
and that you, in essence, treat only your goals as mattering or even existing. Even many objectivists notice that I have my own goals and interests. and many of them read my posts and respond to the points I make. they just as often think I am wrong. But they fucking see me, lol.
This need on your point to expose me, to explain me, to disclose to everyone what is really going on beyond the curtain.
Or so it seems to me.
And then the role that logic, rational thought and virtue either play or do not play in discussing capital punishment is no longer even the point of the exchange.