First of all, I believe an understanding of these relationships is so important it is foolish to expend our energies discussing them in the rant forum.
I would never deny that there may well be an objective manner in which to evalute the arguments of those who believe viewing pornography is moral and those who believe it is immoral.
All I keep emphasising instead is the manner in which this seems to be embedded/embodied in dasein and conflicting goods.
And then I note the gap that seems to exist between evaluating objectively whether or not someone does in fact view it [he/she either does or does not] and evaluting whether or not viewing it is either objectively moral or immoral.
What then is the optimal philosophical argument such that both sides points are satisfied? Again, I’m not suggesting it does not exist. After all, how on earth would I demonstrate that? All I can do instead is go in search of an argument that would lead me to conclude that there is in fact an objective resolution for this or for any other moral conflict.
Yes, this thread can be shifted away from the points that I raised in the OP…and then aimed more at me instead.
But this isn’t the rant house, it’s the philosophy forum. So, do either of you have an intelligent argument to make regarding the manner in which I connect the dots between objective morality and dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? As it pertains to the issue of pornography?
Or, sure, regarding any other moral conflict you might wish to discuss instead.
Since you will always evaluate ‘intelligent’, ‘argument’, ‘manner’, ‘connect the dots’, ‘objective’, ‘morality’ and ‘dasein’ through your own dasein… the answer is obviously : NO.
What is to prevent you from always claiming that we don’t have an intelligent argument?
Ultimately, you have a self-referential objection to any arguments.
Again, you will either make an argument or you won’t. Mine revolves around the manner in which I situate the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy out in a world where our behaviors often clash over value judgments.
Now, it would seem that the components of your own argument revolve around the tools of philosophy and God.
Okay, using both what would you deem the most rational argument in which to contain the conflicting moral narratives made [and noted above] with respect to pornography? Or choose any other issue.
In other words, instead of always making me the argument.
Given that your argument is perpetually that you are the root of your argument and your argument is such solely because of you, it seems a little unfair to expect others to address your argument without making you the argument.
No, my argument is basically that with respect to the relationship between value judgments and identity there are factors that either do or do not transcend dasein.
We all have different moral narratives with regard to an issue like pornography. So, I ask, to what extent is that rooted in the manner in which I construe dasein? And then, further, to what extent can we resolve any antithetical narratives given the manner in which I construe conflicting goods?
Now, with Phyllo, of course, this would also include another factor: God.
I merely suggest that once the discussion is taken down to earth and wrapped around a particular moral conflict we are all familiar with we can explore more substantively the extent to which the tools of philosophy [or science or religion] are or are not applicable.
Thus all Phyllo and I can really do then is to continue to explore this in our exchanges. But he now seems convinced we have reached an impasse.
