All we can do in regards to our reactions to human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments [as philosophers or otherwise] is to describe [as best we can] what we perceive a particular situation to be.
There are those who insist that one’s value judgments [and thus behaviors] ought to be in sync with God, or Marx, or Freud, or Hitler, or Mao, or Kant, or Nietzsche or Rorty.
As for the descriptions we give, the language we use can only be more or less connected precisely to the world we live in, the behaviors we choose. Thus the doctor performing an abortion has a considerably more exact vocabulary than the ethicist attempting to describe the pregnant woman’s moral obligation.
As for gobbledygook, some insist that this revolves more around the didactic intellectual contraptions some “serious philosophers” employ when they take their “technically correct” “analyses” out into the world of actual human interactions.
What on earth does that have to with this:
We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?
Politics and law have ever and always been embedded in political economy. Such that “distributive justice” will always be more in sync with the interests of the nihilists who own and operate the global economy re “the class struggle”, than anything Rawls might have proposed. Imagine, for example, a champion of John Rawls addressing the folks at the upcoming Bilderberg Group enclave.
And the answers that you give to my questions bear almost no resemblance to answers that seem reasonable to me. It’s just that I have no illusions that my own answers here [with respect to conflicting goods] are anything other than existential contraptions rooted in dasein.
Of course there aren’t. Who would willingly prefer to view conflicting goods as I do? Who would actually choose to reject the comforting and consoling idea that I am in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do? Whether as an objectivists or otherwise.
This is precisely the sort of smug, arrogant rejoinder I would get from Satyr over at KT. Only for him [of course] the “incoherent, the ignorant, and the stupid” people are all those who don’t share his own hopelessly didactic “general descriptions” of human interactions: as either wholly in sync with his own rendition of nature or not. He’d have as much contempt for you as you apparently have for me.
Whereas I suspect this contempt resides more in the manner in which I view human motivation [re value judgments] here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
The psychology of objectivism indeed!
Yeah, he would often go here as well. Huffing and puffing and making me the issue. Insisting that “analysis” – a particular world of words – is what philosophy is really all about.
Yes, many believe that. And while, like you, I don’t take it seriously, that doesn’t necessarily exclude it as one possible explanation taking us all the way back to a complete and unerring understanding of existence itself.
Indeed, how might Rawls have intertwined “distributive justice” into an “analysis” of that?