artful pauper and iambiguous discuss the "objective good"

[The_Artful_Pauper]

It seems to me that our conversation is nearly exhausted for now. I almost wonder having read through your last post if you truly care about anything — I don’t mean that as an insult but literally wonder. If you do perhaps you don’t want to say it but it might be worth investigating why you do.

Likewise in regards to this:

@iambiguous

On the other hand, the world today is basically owned and operated by folks who are not really concerned with these “philosophical” relationships at all. Instead, their focus is on 1] cheap labor 2] natural resources and 3] markets.

It is the Henry Kissingers of the world that call the shots by and large. The Bilderbergers. The amoral crony capitalists.

And their “moral calculations” revolve around dollars and cents.

If there is no good and bad, then does it really matter what people like Kissenger and other political and economic elites do? Even if they nuke the world or torture people, does it really matter? Does it matter if people are enslaved and made to work at something which doesn’t benefit them? If so, why does it matter? What is it that becomes endangered by any such destructive actions, what are the grounds of such dangers or pain? To me these things are all indissociable from biological realities.

[iambiguous]

@The Artful Pauper

It seems to me that our conversation is nearly exhausted for now. I almost wonder having read through your last post if you truly care about anything — I don’t mean that as an insult but literally wonder. If you do perhaps you don’t want to say it but it might be worth investigating why you do.

Yes, discussions of this sort have a tendency to collapse in on themselves. At least once it is acknowledged by one or both parties that there does not seem to be an argument that can finally resolve it. Objectively. My point is merely to note that the “objective good” conceived as an intellectual contraption can become considerably at odds with the “objective good” as it is understood existentially out in the world of conflicted human behaviors.

Words and worlds here can often come to encompass a truly problematic relationship.

As for caring about something, my point has been that one can care about strengtening one’s biology [and eating meat] or in securing the rights of animals not to be consumed [and not eating meat].

But this, in my view, is largely the embodiment of daseins living in a world where both behaviors can be rationalized given the nature of the conflicting goods here.

@iambiguous

On the other hand, the world today is basically owned and operated by folks who are not really concerned with these “philosophical” relationships at all. Instead, their focus is on 1] cheap labor 2] natural resources and 3] markets.

It is the Henry Kissingers of the world that call the shots by and large. The Bilderbergers. The amoral crony capitalists.

And their “moral calculations” revolve around dollars and cents.

@The Artful Pauper

If there is no good and bad, then does it really matter what people like Kissenger and other political and economic elites do?

My point is that “good” and “bad” do in fact exist “out in the world”. It’s just that they are basically existential contraptions situated substantially in the assumptions that individuals [as dasein] make about what constitutes “the best of all possible worlds”.

It’s just that here different people will root this in different assumptions. Some in God, some in Reason, some in “what’s in it for me?” And both the moral objectivists and amoral perspectivists are able configure the world into a living hell. At least for some. And often for many.

@The Artful Pauper

Even if they nuke the world or torture people, does it really matter? Does it matter if people are enslaved and made to work at something which doesn’t benefit them? If so, why does it matter? What is it that becomes endangered by any such destructive actions, what are the grounds of such dangers or pain? To me these things are all indissociable from biological realities.

Well, it will matter to some more than to others. The point is this: that in a world without God there is no transcending point of view that allows us [as mere mortals] to establish an objective moral agenda. Indeed, that is at the heart and the soul of this: In the absense of God all things are permitted.

Why? Because all behaviors can be rationalized given a particular set of premises/assumptions.

[phyllo]

Yes, discussions of this sort have a tendency to collapse in on themselves. At least once it is acknowledged by one or both parties that there does not seem to be an argument that can finally resolve it. Objectively. My point is merely to note that the “objective good” conceived as an intellectual contraption can become considerably at odds with the “objective good” as it is understood existentially out in the world of conflicted human behaviors.

The relativist says that. He claims to hold a veto. He can’t lose simply because of his intransigence.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

Yes, discussions of this sort have a tendency to collapse in on themselves. At least once it is acknowledged by one or both parties that there does not seem to be an argument that can finally resolve it. Objectively. My point is merely to note that the “objective good” conceived as an intellectual contraption can become considerably at odds with the “objective good” as it is understood existentially out in the world of conflicted human behaviors.

The relativist says that. He claims to hold a veto. He can’t lose simply because of his intransigence.

What in the world does this mean? Pertaining to the discussion Artful and I are [or were] having above regarding the “objective good” and animal rights, what exactly are you trying to convey here?

Besides, my point goes beyond moral relativism itself. It is far more radical. I am suggesting that, given the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods, it is reasonable to become ientangled in this:

I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction.

So, pertaining to animal rights, abortion or any other moral conflict how, in your opinion, is this not reasonable? How might one construct a more reasonable argument instead?

And, by all means, include the part about God.

[phyllo]

What in the world does this mean? Pertaining to the discussion Artful and I are [or were] having above regarding the “objective good” and animal rights, what exactly are you trying to convey here?

Simple.
An objectivist looks outside of himself for guidance. That includes ‘objective good’ and morality. If the outside source of guidance says that he should believe something then it would not make sense to deny it.
A relativist looks within himself for guidance. His own feelings, impressions and thoughts give him the power to deny or veto any opposing views. He has empowered himself by claiming to be the source of morality and objective good. He does not need to respond to external guidance.

Get it?

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

What in the world does this mean? Pertaining to the discussion Artful and I are [or were] having above regarding the “objective good” and animal rights, what exactly are you trying to convey here?

Simple.
An objectivist looks outside of himself for guidance. That includes ‘objective good’ and morality. If the outside source of guidance says that he should believe something then it would not make sense to deny it.
A relativist looks within himself for guidance. His own feelings, impressions and thoughts give him the power to deny or veto any opposing views. He has empowered himself by claiming to be the source of morality and objective good. He does not need to respond to external guidance.

Get it?

No, all I get is that I ask you connect the dots between the argument you make and a specific moral conflict like animal rights, and you default to a generic objectivist and a generic relativist reacting to a generic context.

From my perspective, an objectivist is someone who assumes that that which she has found “outside” regarding animal rights is the only rational manner in which one can think about it. And how is this not rooted in dasein? Is there really a way in which someone can ascertain all that one would need to know about the rights of animals in order to grasp [espistemologically? ontologically?] the one true objective good?

And how is a relativist not also in the same boat here? It’s just that the relativist is able to grasp the existential implications of this insofar as it impacts the decisions that he makes [re animal rights, abortion etc.] “for all practical purposes”.

And what of this:

[i]Besides, my point goes beyond moral relativism itself. It is far more radical. I am suggesting that, given the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods, it is reasonable to become ientangled in this:

I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction.

So, pertaining to animal rights, abortion or any other moral conflict how, in your opinion, is this not reasonable? How might one construct a more reasonable argument instead?

And, by all means, include the part about God.[/i]

[phyllo]

My comments were about this statement and specifically the underlined:
“Yes, discussions of this sort have a tendency to collapse in on themselves. At least once it is acknowledged by one or both parties that there does not seem to be an argument that can finally resolve it. Objectively.”

It seems fairly obvious why the discussions collapse. And why no argument can resolve it. Hint: It’s the self-referential nature of the relativist.

I don’t want to play connect the dots with you.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

My comments were about this statement and specifically the underlined:
“Yes, discussions of this sort have a tendency to collapse in on themselves. At least once it is acknowledged by one or both parties that there does not seem to be an argument that can finally resolve it. Objectively.”

It seems fairly obvious why the discussions collapse. And why no argument can resolve it. Hint: It’s the self-referential nature of the relativist.

I don’t want to play connect the dots with you.

I still don’t get it.

All you have to do here is note your own moral perspective relating to animal rights and then explain how you make the distinction between the objectivist and the relativist – as this pertains to you.

The only dots I want connected are the ones between your words and the world that you live in. A world in which [over and again] you are going to bump into others who embrace conflicting value judgments relating to any number of issues. Conflicting renditions of “objective goods” in other words.

From my perspective both the objectivists and the relativists interact “out in the world” as daseins confronting opposing moral and political agendas.

Now, there seem to be but three options here:

1] Might makes right
2] Moderation, negotiation and compromise
3] the capacity to apprehend [deontologically] the most rational human behavior

Now, if there is an objective philosophical/ethical resolution, there would be no need for moderation, negotiaction or compromise. Sure, one may refuse to abide by the objective truth, but there can be no denying that they are acting irrationally.

And, sure, even if an objective truth can be determined those in power may refuse to abide it and still embrace a might makes right agenda.

My argument of course is that sans God there is no objective philosophical argument able to resolve these conflicting goods. Or, rather, no argument that I have come across.

And yet many here claim to believe in a God, the God, my God. But I can never get them to go there either. With immortality and salvation itself at stake [re Judgment Day] how are we obligated morally to behave in order to attain them.

Instead, the bottom line always seems to be the same: Keep it vague. Keep it “philosophical”.

[phyllo]

Now, there seem to be but three options here:

1] Might makes right
2] Moderation, negotiation and compromise
3] the capacity to apprehend [deontologically] the most rational human behavior

Now, if there is an objective philosophical/ethical resolution, there would be no need for moderation, negotiaction or compromise. Sure, one may refuse to abide by the objective truth, but there can be no denying that they are acting irrationally.

We already went down this route many times. Remember the rapist? Everyone says that his behavior is abhorrent but he says it’s for his own pleasure and you can’t change his mind. Therefore you claim that no convincing argument exists and no objective morality. You don’t say that he is irrational or unreasonable or sick. He refuses to agree and he has you by the …

Isn’t God the ultimate ‘might makes right’ solution?

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

Now, there seem to be but three options here:

1] Might makes right
2] Moderation, negotiation and compromise
3] the capacity to apprehend [deontologically] the most rational human behavior

Now, if there is an objective philosophical/ethical resolution, there would be no need for moderation, negotiaction or compromise. Sure, one may refuse to abide by the objective truth, but there can be no denying that they are acting irrationally.

We already went down this route many times. Remember the rapist? Everyone says that his behavior is abhorrent but he says it’s for his own pleasure and you can’t change his mind. Therefore you claim that no convincing argument exists and no objective morality. You don’t say that he is irrational or unreasonable or sick. He refuses to agree and he has you by the …

Yes, in a world sans God, any behavior can be rationalized as moral. The rapist simply convinces himself that morality revolves around his own self-gratification. Or maybe he constructs this complex philosophical/intellectual contraption rationalizing such behavior in a world where the ubermen take what they want from women because that is just the way the world is.

Sound familiar?

And what is the deontologist able to argue here but this: “Everyone justs knows that is wrong.”

And yet in a world sans God, the rapist is held accountable only if he gets caught. Why in the world do you imagine the Gods are invented? With God, there is no chance of the rapist not getting caught. And with God there is no chance of the rapist not being punished.

And then I note the manner in which some construe abortion as an even greater moral abomination. Why? Because the unborn baby is literally ripped to shreds.

Similarly, there at those who construe the eating of animal flesh in much the same way: the animals, after all, are slaughtered.

@phyllo

Isn’t God the ultimate ‘might makes right’ solution?

Sure, but the true believers are able to rationalize this by insisting that God [at least their God] is ultimately loving, just and merciful. And if at times it doesn’t seem that way, that is only because God’s ways are mysterious beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp.

Is that how you rationalize it?

Now, again:

[i]Besides, my point goes beyond moral relativism itself. It is far more radical. I am suggesting that, given the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods, it is reasonable to become ientangled in this:

I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction.

So, pertaining to animal rights, abortion or any other moral conflict how, in your opinion, is this not reasonable? How might one construct a more reasonable argument instead?

And, by all means, include the part about God.[/i]

I include this again only perchance that one day you actually will be able to connect the dots.

But [in my view] you really have to ask yourself why [to date] you won’t.

[phyllo]

Yes, in a world sans God, any behavior can be rationalized as moral. The rapist simply convinces himself that morality revolves around his own self-gratification. Or maybe he constructs this complex philosophical/intellectual contraption rationalizing such behavior in a world where the ubermen take what they want from women because that is just the way the world is.

Sound familiar?

And someone can claim that he does not see the sun and the existence of the sun revolves around his own self-referential statements. The sun cannot be demonstrated to him. As long as he does not agree that there is a sun, then there is no sun. Objectively.

You make the leap and call bullshit on that idea. But you do not make the same leap in the case of the rapist and objective morality.

How is it really different?

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

Yes, in a world sans God, any behavior can be rationalized as moral. The rapist simply convinces himself that morality revolves around his own self-gratification. Or maybe he constructs this complex philosophical/intellectual contraption rationalizing such behavior in a world where the ubermen take what they want from women because that is just the way the world is.

Sound familiar?

And someone can claim that he does not see the sun and the existence of the sun revolves around his own self-referential statements. The sun cannot be demonstrated to him. As long as he does not agree that there is a sun, then there is no sun. Objectively.

[i]Note to others:

Would someone please explain to me what this has to do with the points I raised regarding the mentality of the rapist in a world with and without God.[/i]

To compare the Sun to a rapist seems preposterous to me. The Sun does not choose to do what it does – it is determined to do what it must re the laws of matter. But the matter in the rapist’s mind is either able to willfully choose to rape or willfully choose not to.

And whether someone does or does not choose to recognize the determined properties of the Sun does not make the objective existence of the Sun go away. Or does the argument here revolve around solipsism?

How would you distinguish an argument that rape is objectively immoral in a world with and without God?

How are those who rationalize rape from the perspective of self-gratification [or from the perspective of the uberman above] necessarily irrational/immoral?

And what about the manner in which I drew an analogy between rape, abortion and the consumption of animal flesh?