Well if one had an abotion and was with a clear conscience afterwards, is that not a sufficient measurement of one’s “moral agenda” regarding the op?
It is often the case that convictions exist only as a mask for one’s own self-doubts and uncertainties/anxieties. Likewise with any belief or paradigm. Of course this does not hold for all convictions or beliefs; only those which springs from necessity can be “trusted”, in this sense, to be genuine or at least sufficiently so. That is to say, all mental objects serve psychological functions of utility and one can never fathom fully one’s own depths, but through philosophy (broadly defined) one can purge to a very large extent the extraneous motives, conditionings and false/harmful attachments that confine our consciousness to the surface. When this happens the majority of beliefs and convictions formerly held fall apart almost immediately, revealing themselves to be entirely without substance or merit. What is left is a space of greater authenticity born of a higher self-understanding, from which new ideas and experiences of the self spring, ultimately under new forms as the old forms of conviction, paradigmatic belief, tend to fade away.
The op makes a distinction between convictions that can be confirmed empirically “out in the world” and convictions that cannot.
For example, a considerable chasm once existed between astronomers who embraced the “steady state” model of the universe and astronomers who embraced the “big bang” model instead. Today that gap has virtually disappeared. Almost all astronomers/astrophysicists agree the big bang model makes the most sense. By far.
Consider this from Bill Bryson:
[b]Alan Guth’s inflation theory…holds that a fraction of a moment after the dawn of creation, the universe underwent a sudden dramatic expansion. It inflated----in effect ran away with itself, doubling in size every 10 to the minus 34th power seconds. The whole episode may have lasted no more than 10 to the minus 30th power seconds----that’s one million, million, million, million, millionths of a second—but it changed the universe from something you could hold in your hand to something at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, bigger. Inflation theory explain the ripples and eddies that make our universe possible. Without it, there would be no clumps of matter and thus no stars, just drifting gas and everlasting darkness.
According to Guth’s theory, at one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second gravity emerged. After another ridiculously brief interval it was joined by electro-magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—the stuff of physics. These were joined an instant later by swarms of elementary particles----the stuff of stuff. From nothing at all, suddenly there were swarms of photons, protons, electrons, neutrons, and much else—between 10 to the 79th power and 10 to the 80th power of each, according to the standard Big Bang theory.[/b]
And this is true, astrophysicists insist, because it is reflects the most reasonable manner in which to explain why the universe exist as it does today.
But suppose instead we consider the moral arguments of those who insist that spending on space exploration should cease until we have solved more pressing problems right here at home. Is this a rational [ethical] point of view? Is there a way for philosophers to establish this? To establish it, in other words, in the manner in which science has established the rationality of big bang theory?
No, in my opinion, there is not.
And even if down the road the big bang theory is modified or shunted aside by a more rational argument still, the rationality will be subject to rigorous peer review and able to be or not to be replicated by others based on hard data.
I’m not one of those peers so those numbers are as convincing for the big bang as they are for the existence of God. Amongst ‘pro-lifers’ (peers) the argument against abortion is as solid as the theory of the big bang, their evidence, their observable date: The Bible. Peers simply mean: people who agree. Thus the eco-warriors have their reason behind an argument against space exploration, their observable data: global warming, pollution, animal extinction etc. I don’t even know if we’re in agreement or disagreement. There’s no obective morality? So what? Would it even make a difference if it were?
I know what you mean. I often feel the same way. I read analysis like that and think: huh? Like most of us, I’m just a “civilian” here. I can only trust that what I read—or hear on programming from channels like science, discovery and history—is substanially true.
But then hypothetically imagine going back in time 300 years and explaining computers, the Internet and smart phones to our ancesters. You think they would buy it?
But this is very, very different from the abortion debate. Science deals with either/or not is/ought. Neither philosophers nor scientists can determine definitively whether women ought to be forced to give birth against their wishes. Personally, I am opposed to it. But I recongnize this is only a point of view. And can only be one.
That’s what makes the “global warming” debate so fascinating. Deciding what we ought to do is in fact predicated in large part on figuring out who is or is not right about the burning of fossil fuels. And then figuring out if, at our current rate of polluting the atmosphere, the planet is indeed in peril.
“Peer” means someone of equal standing.
A young child may agree with a professor of divinity on the existence of God, but they are not peers. Two professors of biology may be peers but disagree on theories of abiogenesis.
The point I’m making is that truth isn’t simply a matter of agreeing with people and forming a consensus - we also intrinsically accord more weight to people who have made studies, demonstrated arguments, developed skills and so on.
There’s a tendency in modern Western philosophy to see truth as contingent on politics, and while that is a factor, it’s not purely an act of will - there is also a technical aspect to belonging to a peer group. A plumber won’t convince his peers that he’s a good plumber by political manoeuvring, as his plumbing is also available for inspection by a group of peers with a tradition, standards of acceptance and pride in their craftsmanship. While that’s somewhat less concrete in academia, there is still an entrance bar that must be passed, and that the peer group themselves maintain in order to keep standards high and justify themselves externally.
I suspect that this is why postmodernism caused (and causes) such a fuss - rather than disagreeing on technical terms within the academic tradition, it challenges the standards of acceptance, the craftsmanship, the tradition itself.