No, I’m suggesting that what compels the moral objectivists and the political idealists to action is the belief that they are in touch with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.
Just as the religious folks are compelled by their faith in God. Just as the political ideologues are compelled by their own rendition of Humanism. Just as the KT crowd is compelled by their own [meaning Satyr’s] assessment of nature.
What is of greatest importance [in my view] is not what they believe that compels them to action, but that they are convinced there is a way in which to know this.
This is the psychological component of “I” that sustains both comfort and consolation in a postmodern world in which meaning and purpose are becoming increasingly more problematic.
One or another variation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Instead, I speculate that “I” here is an existential, construction, deconstruction and reconstruction from the cradle to the grave.
Most people do have a reason. That may be ideology or religion or god knows what, but when you’re lost in an Existential wasteland and reckon that no one is going to come and rescue you (which is a very Existentialist thing to recko, you have to strike out in some direction or perish. In this context (are you getting the whole metaphor here?) any direction is better than standing still.
They are not lost in an existential wasteland because they do not construe “I” here as I do. So I ask them to reconfigure their moral and political narrative into a discussion involving an actual context. How are they not fractured and fragmented as I am? What is their argument in reacting to the components that are particularly meaningful to me.
Instead, over and again, they “explain” themselves by generating “general descriptions” like you do here.
No “I” need fracture here. It’s the “I” that’s getting you away from crying beasts and back to your hut in the shadow of the Temple of Dasein.
I’m not arguing that “I” need fracture with regards to conflicting goods. I’m only pointing out that given how I have come to think about “I” at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power, “I” am fractured and fragmented.
If you are not, okay, fine, try to explain to me why you are not given a particular context. Or don’t and move on to others.
And political economy is rooted historically in all of the various ways in which the means of production allowed a particular community to set up the distribution of goods and services.
Distributive justice, the political morality if you will, is like this, too. So what?
So, in acknowledging this, you are confirming what many believe to be that crucial intertwining of “I” in unique sets of existential variables out in a particular world historically, culturally, and in terms of ones own personal experiences.
That, in other words, this is what the deontologists, the philosopher-kings and the political ideologues [among others] conveniently leave out of their own one-size-fits-all dogmatic strictures.