No, as a matter of fact, any number very rich and powerful folks want only to sustain a world that they deem to be in their own best [and selfish] interest. Basically, their “morality” revolves around “show me the money”. Capitalism thrives on a generally amoral approach to human interractions. What counts are market transactions in which there are winners and losers. Interactions then rationalized by one or another rendition of suvival of the fittest. A dog eat dog world that revolves largely around K Street and Wall Street. And their cronies in Washington. At least here in America.
And then there are all the narcissists and sociopaths.
And what about the folks who own and operate nations like Russia and China. Do they want to create a just society? Do they want others to act in a manner other than in sustaining their wealth and power? Where does the “power of rational thought” fit in here?
And for those who are intent on creating a just world, what on earth does that mean with respect to actual issues like abortion or gun control or animal rights or energy policy or the role of government or separation of church and state or homosexuality or gender norms?
Rational thought here? Who gets to decide what that is? And common sense tells us that, in regard to value judgments, any particular individual’s point of view is going to be largely embeded in historical and cultural contexts. And clearly derived from the actual experiences that unfold in the life that they have lived.
Existential – subjective/subjunctive – variables are everywhere here. Engendering social, political and economic permutations that then fall up and down the political spectrum. And [so far] throughout all of human history.
And yet “general descriptions” of the relationship between words and worlds brings philosophy [however it is understood] no where near the actual contexts that make up our day to day interactions with others.
In my view, philosophy fails when it does not take into account the existential nature of human interaction. When, instead, it proposes that moral obligations can be “thought up” or “deduced” into existence; and then attached to words like “categorical” and “imperative”. Morality differentiated as either shadows on the cave walls or out in the clear light of one another rendition of philosophical realism or political idealism.
And then those who throw in one or another rendition of God in turn.
In what particular context? Regarding what particular behaviors?
Again: All I am trying to distinguish here is the difference between being logical in regard to value judgments, being rational in regard to them, and being moral in regard to them.
And in order to flesh this out you have to actually discuss your own views regarding these issues. And then when others react to that you can point out deficiencies in their use of logic and rational thinking and assumptions regarding virtuous behavior.
Okay, then be rational in reacting to the conflicting goods that revolve around the death penalty. Note your own value judgment here. Note for us why it is deemed rational to you.
And then when I note that my own value judgments here revolve precisely around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, you can point out the parts that are in sync with the true rationalists and those that are not.