From my frame of mind, an intellectual contraption is an assessment – basically a world of words device, contrivance – pertaining to one or another aspect of human interaction in which there is no actual description of a context in which the interactions unfold. In particular [for me] when those interactions unfold at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political power.
In other words, your point above. Followed by mine. Two intellectual contraptions in which the words define and defend the meaning of other words; but the words don’t make reference to any particular set of circumstances. Now, if you wish to argue that my take on it here is not “technically” correct, be my guest.
And, given my own understanding of moral nihilism, human interactions in a No God world seems to suggest [to me] a world in which conflicting moral narratives precipitating conflicting behaviors precipitating either positive or negative consequences for particular people in a particular context, there does not appear [again to me] to be a font [philosophical, scientific, natural] that mere mortals can turn to in order to establish an essential truth in regard to Good and Evil. Instead, the conflicting narratives are reflective of the manner in which I construe the meaning of identity, value judgments and political economy in my signature threads.
But, again, so far, all of this is contained in intellectual contraptions [yours and mine] predicated entirely on the meaning and the definitions given to words placed in a particular order.
That is when I insist on taking these words [mine and others] out into the world that we live in.
Again, another intellectual contraption!
”…unless you are able to provide us with an argument and a demonstration that argument which conclusively establishes how all rational people are obligated to feel about it".
Exactly. But what argument made about what set of circumstances in which different people think and feel conflicting things.
The concept of fairness?
Theoretically, given conflicting concepts of fairness, is aborting a human baby moral or immoral. But: How is this the same or different from an existential assessment of an actual abortion in an actual [and entirely unique] set of circumstances?
Conceptually, when does the unborn actually become a human being? Well, let’s define a human being as starting at the point of conception. Does that make it true for all practical purposes?
On the contrary, human morality is anything but baseless. Instead, in my view, it is constructed historically, culturally and experientially based on many, many, many often times conflicting sets of assumptions about the human condition.
But once you acknowledge there is no font that mere mortals can turn to in order to hold moral values in “absolute certainty”, then you have ask yourself how certain you can be of your own value judgments in a No God world. I simply point to components of my own here: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.
That’s how “I” have come to explain feeling fractured and fragmented. How then do those [like KT] who do not in turn believe in objective morality not feel this way?
Over and again you express things like this in “general descriptions”. Note a context in which you acknowledge that while there is no way in which you can embody “absolute certainty” in your value judgments, you can still claim to “have ample evidence of [your] own fallibility”.
To me, there are no necessary, inherent moral failures. There is only the existential gap between what as dasein you have come to believe about right and wrong in regard to, say, citizens owning guns, and how as dasein you react to gun legislation in the world that you live in.