Well, given my own experience with moral and political objectivists, the only thing that can be derived from it, whether in regard to vaccines or any other context involving conflicting goods, is that, yes, it is possible to know what is going on in the world. Why? Because they already do know what is going on.
Which means that if you don’t share their own assessment of their own collection of facts then you are wrong.
Necessarily wrong.
Also, the objectivists among us will almost never admit that in regard to an issue as important as this one – here literally involving life and death – that they were ever wrong. After all, to note that they were once wrong about something this important, means that they may well be wrong this time too.
At best, some will abandon one objectivist frame of mind for another. Okay, they were wrong before, but now they’ve seen the light. That was me once.
With 2, I’ve researched the matter enough, to make my own valued-judgement on it, that correlates with more than you might think.
I don’t doubt that. My point though is that those on the other side can say the same thing. Then what? Then it’s back to a thread like this, a debate in which both sides are able to construct reasonable arguments based sets of assumptions, facts and scenarios that the other side are never able to make go away. Not completely.
Here in particular that revolves around political prejudices revolving around views of the government, of Big Brother, of assessments pertaining to the optimal relationship between “I” and “we” and “them”. In regard to any particular citizen’s freedoms and responsibilites.
The part I root in dasein, but that the objectivists root in God or ideology or reason or moral obligation or nature.
My point of course is to the extent to which someone might embrace a point of view here that is attached to what I call the psychology of objectivism. The belief that as far as vaccines [and most everything else political] are concerned, they are in touch with the “real me” wholly in sync with “the right thing to do”.
…and who might this person, this someone, be?
It could be anyone.
Here I suggest that they explore the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Then in regard to vaccines [on this thread] I ask them to note the extent to which their own political prejudices might perhaps be but another manifestation of this. Which back when I was an objectivist – both God and No God – it was clearly the case involving myself.
Thus they are far less willing even to consider the arguments of others, let alone to moderate their own views in order to negotiate and compromise with those who have conflicting assessments in order to enact actual laws that reflect a broader consensus.
Conflicting… or he who shouts the loudest? Individual versus conglomerates…
That’s the part I root in political economy. The part that revolves around those who have accumulated the most economic power. The part that revolves around my own rendition of the “deep state”: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=173789&p=2187045&hilit=bullfrog+films#p2187045