This is all then elaborated further.
But, basically, it becomes my point. In order to understand [more substantively] what motivates someone and drives their intentions in the is/ought world of value judgments, you have to understand how their own life actually unfolded such that the particular variables embedded in their experiences, relationships and access to ideas predisposed them to think one way rather than another.
Existentially, you came to construe corporations and capitalism one way while the lives that others lived predisposed them to go in other directions instead.
Now suppose a particular liberal and a particular conservative come to recognize that. They begin to wonder if there is in fact a way to react to corporations and capitalism in the most rational and virtuous manner. Is it all just embedded in these “existential contraptions”?
So, sure, they can sit down, think it all through as thoroughly as they possibly can and come up with arguments like this: economicshelp.org/blog/5002 … apitalism/
Conflicting goods. So, extrude the part where “I” is fabricated and refabricated existentially in the life that you lived and pin down the optimal frame of mind.
Is this possible?
And that’s before we get to the part where the “show me the money” nihilists out there flush all that “conflicting goods” crap down the toilet and merely make the assumption that whatever they have come to believe furthers their own interests, is moral enough for them.
And, by and large, it is folks like this who run the global economy.
From my frame of mind, that which is true “universially” for all of us is embedded in the either/or world. In those things that we are able to demonstrate as in fact true objectively for all of us.
And, sure, with respect to the multitude of conflicting goods strewn throughout the is/ought world, there are certain sets of facts that can be established in regard to social, political and economic structures.
But, in my view, as soon as our reaction to those facts shifts the conversation from what is true to what we ought to do given what can be established as true, the points of view become increasingly more subjective. And subjunctive.
I on solid ground begins to reconfigure into “I” on shakier ground. Then it just becomes a matter how “fractured and fragmented” any particular “I” becomes. Me, I am down in my hole. So, I can only come into places like this and consider arguments that might reconfigure me again.
On the other hand, I have had any number of experiences in places like this where it actually turned out to be more the other way around. My argument begins to reconfigure the argument of others instead. And the reactions to that have been all over the board.
Thus this…
…becomes just another “general description” that, once brought down to earth like this…
…becomes just another subjective leap to a particular political prejudice rooted existentially in the life that you lived.
Freedom revolves entirely around the political right of women to choose abortion. Why? Because sans that right how can women ever hope to achieve gender equality with men in a world where only women become pregnant.
The freedom of the unborn embedded in what others deem to be a “natural right” to life is simply subordinated [politically] to the woman’s right to choose. The unborn have no choice in the matter. So many in the pro-choice ranks rationalize this by insisting that the unborn who are aborted are not really human beings at all.
And then on and on that particular argument about what is “in fact” true here is sustained into an indefinite future.