IOW you don’t know the meaning of ‘good’, ‘better’ and ‘best’ in the context of morality. Even when it involves acts which produce pleasure, pain, hunger, death, etc. Objective acts which produce objective results ultimately hit the wall of subjective personal preference. :-"
No, my point is this:
We might all agree on the definition of “good”, “better” and “best”. And we might all agree on what they mean with respect to morality.
But then some will take their own definitions/meanings of these words and insist that Alexander embodied rationality, virtue and nobility.
Others, however, using the very same definitions/meanings, will insist that he did not.
Then what?
On the other hand, regarding the dispute between those who say that he did or did not exist [though here a figure like Jesus Christ would be more appropriate] is there going to be much of a difference between how they attach the definition/meaning of the word “exist” to Alexander?
Instead, using their tools, the historians are able to rather handily conclude that in fact Alexander the Great did once exist. So, how “rather handily” are the ethicists going to be able to establish if Alexander’s life embodied vice or virtue using their tools?
Sounds like you have multiple contradictory definitions for the words.
Is being hit on the head with a baseball bat good? And not being hit on the head with a baseball bat is equally good? And eating ice cream is equally good?
Uh, oh…
We seem to have hit another impasse.
Only, just your luck, you can always fall back on God, right? Surely, He knows what you’re talking about. 
Funny that you mention God. It seems more like you are falling back on God and not I. 
You say that different things are ‘good’ to different people. It’s odd that there would be so much disagreement when we all have similar bodies and therefore similar needs. Surely a large number of items can be classified as ‘good’.
Can you think of anything we could agree on because of our basic needs?
“Not getting beat up” - probably generally a good thing? No?
“Not starving”
[b]Satyr
[/b]
Which nihilist? All nihilists?
Which value judgment? All value judgments?
He won’t say. Why? Because that would require him to come down off of his didactic perch [up in the ivory tower] and actually connect the dots between his words and the world we live in.
And then he often rails against those prone to being “emotional” and yet every other post of his is bursting at the seams with some of the most vile and contemptual emotional outbursts you will ever happen upon in forums such as this. His rage at those who refuse to embrace his own assumptions are legendary. Or, rather, they would be be if anyone other the folks at KT and ILP had ever heard of him.
And while his “cowards” refuse to step out into the objective world, what in the world can this possibly mean when he never provides us with any contexts in which to speculate on conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting sets of values.
This is as stupid as someone saying “A man eats three times a day” and you going “Which man? All men? Which day? All days? He won’t say. Why? Because that would require him to come down off of his didactic perch and blah blah blah.”
The whole debate about the difference between objective and subjective judgements of value, politics, and economy, is either progressive or regressive, as far as being able to discern the elements which effect each other in these regards. The mere fact that there is capacity to assemble an objective stance, embedded in the belief that they are reasonably connected, is based on inherently, if, and only if they prove useful. The inference has been implied by this inference which one type of nihilist sees as necessarily inherent. The other type, likewise, only the ideas of context, situation, and perception are suspended.
Here, only the appearent, is visible, hence there is no inherent, only the appearent.
The appearent is based on a disconnect of logos, and the missing pieces are not permitted to connect.
The missing idea of Alexander the Great’s existence, or lack of, is just such an attempt to either forge a real historical precedent, or, to disallow it on basis of pure objectivity. It’s like trying to prove objectivity by pointing to the idea that certainty in discerning the succession of verifiable historical events in a perfect succession, would guarantee it’s verity.
What if some of those elements were simply forgotten, left out on purpose, in part, or mostly, would that invalidate it? I purport to interpret the difference between the one and the other, in line of the above comment, that humanity shares far more similar features than unfamiliar ones. Therefore certain assumptions may be made, as far as pulling together divergent features of value, economy and politics, even if the missing elements seem to suggest an opposite course. Both, nihilisms are products of orientation according to an attitude, a way of being in the world. And those ways are products of experience either positive, or negative. Nihilisms is the product of reduction, finding its ultimate basis either, or, a construct based on families of resemblances, or, of late, in the postmodern world, of differences. Differences sway at the moment the opinions of those, who have no perceptual or cognitive basis to interpret the difference. They still hold to the old model of reduction toward an intentional construction of an objective standard. Hidden elements escape them, because they tend to disconnect the very cognitive and perceptive elements of a progressive view of unifying with the different, broken off elements. The either or world of dissemblence is seen only in terms of a logical discord, and not dressed in material garb.
For these nihilists the angst cannot be gotten rid of, because the missing elements are unknowingly, and beneath the surface, still harbor the affect within a larger hidden schema.
It becomes an auto-da-fe of chopping off the structural determinants in favor of the apparently useful ones. And here lies the irony.
On the contrary, the value addressed here revolves around subsistence itself. And whether a man eats 1 meal or 3 meals or 6 meals or 9 meals a day, the objective fact is that if he values living he must eat in order to sustain it.
And that includes nihilists too, right?
But suppose the value judgment here shifts from life itself to the eating of animal flesh at your meals.
Some [nihilists or not] argue that it is immoral to consume animal flesh. Others [nihilists or not] argue that it is not.
How then do the philosophers/ethicists determine which choice here reflects the most rational, virtuous and noble of human behaviors?
Oh, and by the way, this is as close as you seem to come to actually taking these relationships seriously, rather than resorting to huffing and puffing.
Let’s keep it that way, okay? Otherwise, the moderator might move the thread to rant and minimize the number of folks who can actually follow the exchange.
Although sometimes it seems that might be the point.
This is all a bit abstract.
How does it more clearly make the distinction between historians discussing the existence of Alexander the Great and ethicists [accepting that he did in fact exist] discussing the morality of his ends and means?
How are they the same and how are they different? Which assessment comes closest to what you would construe to be the objective truth?
here is an example of the failure of discerning existential values. To eat is indubitably an act, which is simply of necessity, as the logic in it is dictated by needs.
What to eat is another problem of a different kettle, because, it has substance , the eating of flesh is a substantive begging of the existential question, of who’s or what’s existence is considered.
Forgive for the interjection. But I was compelled to raise the existential issue, of intrinsic versus extrinsic values. An animal does have certain rights, according to some, of the right to existence. But so does man, and that his existence is predicated on consuming sources of protein, in a food chain all beings participate in.
, when the consumption of plants is included. To some extreme pundits, the argument is carried further, to include plants as beings whom should be owed existential consideration, and the next downward step on the food chain would be fruits. They would be called frutarians , and their methodology would have to be allowed some consideration, as well.
The existential distinction , then, would seem to hinge on interpretative discernment, of the meaning and ramifications of existence itself, and this too, is the point paralleling the difference, between types of existence, and the holders thereof.
Sorry posted this at the same time Your’s came through will try to react to that timely.
Differences and similarities are themselves related in a sense which are not necessarily contradictory,mass we seem to think of them in differing orders of logic. The point is, that there is more similarity, because, civilization has been built in this normative fashion, only to introduce variance rather recently, in the cosmological sense, and accelerating at an increased rate. lately, this has taken on quantum proportions.
As far as Alexander is concerned, his actuality, his existence, has bearing on the subsumed values, but diminishingly appearent, as his existence is made to conform to the variance of his ideas. The simply are of doubt to those types of thinkers, who find him inconveniently indiscernible.
By realizing this, there is at least an afford to try to reduce the difference by re-integrating these notions,
And the bottom line is,as You well expressed it, is that in some ways they are similar, regressive and retrograde, but in others progressive and differentiable.
Are they situational or product of observation? depends on the observer, and the situation. You can get one or the other, or even a mix, depending on points of view , or logical certainty, based on discernible factors of analysis.
At the level of discernment, the issue of Alexander’s existence takes a back seat to the relevance of varied values, political considerations. others have been singled out for their real existing, Shekaspeare, Homer, even Socrates among the notable ones.
The need to prove their existence is predicated on philosophic process of validating the need to construct objective ethics.
It does not shift from life, it is still about life, the only difference is that the relation is less direct.
Vegetarianism has biological and psychological consequences and these consequences either lead to more life or to less life.
Trial and error. You try it out and observe the consequences.
No problem, we will keep it that way.
Yes, but the absolute necessity to consume meals is an objective truth applicable to all of us. It is not just a personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein.
But it is not true objectively that one must consume the flesh of animals in order to sustain one’s life. Instead, this is a value judgment in which some will insist it is moral to eat animals while others will insist it is immoral.
Here are the arguments pro and con: vegetarian.procon.org/
What then is the optimal argument an ethicist can propose that reflects the most rational, virtuous and noble eating behaviors that mere mortals can pursue? What is the argument that transcends the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy here?
Which point of view necessarily leads to more rather than less life?
The bottom line [as I see it] is that, through trial and error or otherwise, some folks consume meat and insist this reflects the most rational, virtuous and noble approach to eating one’s meals. Others, however, do not consume animal flesh and conclude just the same.
But none of them can choose to skip meals altogether, right? Not if they wish to sustain the value rooted in life itself.
Yes they can. Then life becomes a value judgement rooted in dasein.
What’s the difference between :
A B12 deficiency will ruin my life. Therefore I chose to eat meat.
A food deficiency will ruin my life. Therefore I chose to eat.
The absolute necessity to consume meals is an opinion which we all share. Moreover, the validity of such an opinion is easy to test. If someone doubts it he can easily test it.
The value of vegetarianism, on the other hand, is harder to determine due to the higher number of variables involved.
I am not a vegetarian and have no opinion on vegetarianism but let’s say I do, let’s say that I am a vegetarian, and let’s say this opinion is rooted in my personal experience and that it is not corrupted by my desires. I have an opinion which is based on all of the information that is available to me. That does not mean it is correct, it simply means that is the best guess I can make at the time.
Now let’s say I come across people who disagree with me, people who think that vegetarianism is unhealthy for every single human being.
What should I do?
Should I change my mind? Should I stop being a vegetarian? Or should I become a skeptic, refusing to side with any of the two positions?
What I should do is process all of the available information and update my stance if necessary. In most cases, this will mean not changing my mind, since people aren’t as trustworthy as reality is.
I will simply ignore that others disagree, I may not even seek out reasons as to why they disagree, and will simply continue trusting my own senses. This, of course, does not mean I am correct and it does not mean that my opinions are superior to theirs.
But there comes a time when I have enough information to guess why other people disagree with me, and in certain cases, I may come to the conclusion, make the best possible guess I can make, that they are simply not courageous enough to face reality, that their processing of information is corrupted by their desires.
Ever watched The Enemies of Reason presented by Richard Dawkins? Or Messiah by Derren Brown? Or Derren Brown Investigates?
I love Derren Brown.
Basically, what Richard and Derren do is show how people can falsify what they see in order to see what they want to see. Both healthy and corrupted thinking can produce incorrect ideas, but corrupted thinking has a downward movement.
Producing social agreement is never my goal. Since people are quite different, it’s a lot of work, and so it does not pay off in most of the cases. Nonetheless, due to certain habits, social disagreement has an effect on me, and I often engage other people simply in order to understand my own reactions to them.
When he changed his style, they deleted two whole threads on pure philosophy with no warning and consideration for the time he put in the posting. This permaban on him or anyone, this censorship on silencing views and coercion to adapt and conform to some style is the worst kind of violence. He is a fantastic individual, but on here, he is what they make him with their strait-jacketing of his spirit and their reformations. On this board, a fiery philosopher is a permaban criminal compared to those civilized criminals participating quietly advocating their abnormalities, no matter how depraved it is. Conformity > Content.
Should every opinion be given equal credence, should phil. be simply about agreeing to disagree and arrive at no value-judgements?
Did he rape or loot or give death threats to anyone or have sex with little children, encourage drugs, or blackmail anybody or whatever it is… and they are banning him forever like he is some horrible evil monster?.. the hypocrisy of their liberalism.
Whatever.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZzOkI6RQIg[/youtube]
Yes, but there is an objective relationship between the consumption of food and the sustaining of life itself. That is, if you choose to value your own life. It’s not just a matter of someone’s personal opinion.
But when the discussion shifts to whether it is moral or immoral stop eating altogether in order to take your own life, what is the optimal argument a philosopher/ethicist can provide in order to settle this once and for all.
Same with the conflicting goods that revolve around eating or not eating animal flesh.
Yes, this is precisely the sort of arguments used by those who choose to eat meat. Similarly, what can it mean to champion vegetarianism to the aboriginal folks in the far North who rely on hunting seals, walruses, fish etc., to subsist from day to day?
That’s my point. Our moral narratives can only come about in particular circumstantial contexts. Sometimes derived historically, culturally or [for each of us as individuals] experientially.
You arbitrarily choose what is objective and what is subjective. There is no system or method in it. That has become very clear.