James suggested we create our own discussion so as not to take his own in a direction he apparently does not want it to go.[/b]
Then you should call them on that. The tricky part here though is the same. Whether with respect to a moral issue like abortion and capital punishment or an economic issue like the merits of socialism and the implications of crony capitalism, there are going to be facts able to be established as true objectively. Fine. But then there is the matter of how those facts are interpreted within the context of a particular moral framework. In other words, one in which particular behaviors are said to be either right or wrong depending on how one reacts [subjectively] to the objective facts as they come to be situated in actual social, political and economic contexts.
Yes, and my point is to note that this is how “life goes” with respect to your [u][b]own[/u][/b] moral and political values as well. How then does one trascend this is order to establish what are instead objective moral and political values? And most folks do this either ecclesiastically [religiously] through God or secularly [ideologically] through Reason. Either way though they invariably embrace this as an authoritarian font from which to assess and to judge any conflicts.
And apes and early humanoids did not pursue these relationships through denominational religion or objectivist political dogmas.
Also, my arguments do not reflect the manner in which most “subjectivists” here approach these relationships. Where, after all, do they make mention of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? Let alone, the manner in which I intertwine them “out in the world”.
And here, in my view, we arrive at the [u][b]crux[/u][/b] of the matter: [b]the manner in which you make abstract arguments like this but then fail to situate the points out in the the world of actual conflicting human behaviors[/b].
Again: Barrett’s argument seems quite relevant with respect to abortion. Some people [subjectively] see the birth of the baby as the chief Good. Others [subjectively] see allowing women the right to choose as the chief good. Then there are moral objectivists on both sides of the issue. In other words, if you don’t agree with them, you are wrong.
But a subjectivist [my subjectivist, not yours] argues that any particular individual’s point of view here is derived from dasein. And that these points of view reflect the assumptions embedded in the argument that embraces either the birth of the baby or the woman’s right to choose.
And, in my view, it’s the same for all other conflicting value judgements in which individual daseins are predisposed [existentially] to embrace particular subjective points of view that endorse one or another “side” of an issue.
But either side’s arguments don’t make the arguments of the other side go away. Not necessarily.
Go ahead, pick any context in which human behaviors come into conflict out in the world and we can pursue our arguments more substantively, more substantially.
If you are actually able to convince yourself that you will “live forever” because your thoughts will continue on after you are dead and gone, fine. Whatever works. But most folks seek their consolation here through God and Religion. And in that respect you are like most folks, right?
Thus you are able to convince yourself that “the true objective solution” will be ascertained objectively then. So, sure, you can be more dismissive of the part in the interim. The part where the conflicts unfold here and now.
And I am more than willing to concede that I certainly do not have a “better solution”. In fact, the whole point of my own argument here is rooted in my “dasein dilemma”. There are no objective solutions. Or none that I have come upon.
Understand this simple truth? This is precisely the point I am trying to make: that, historically, cullturally and experientially, individuals are “thrown” into particular worlds that revolve largely around the argument I am making here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
What you seem to argue however is [to me] analogous to Hegel: the final synthesis ends with you. You and your God. You and your value judgments.
In other words, what it means for folks to become more “enlightened” or more “refined” is to end up thinking about things like homosexuality as you do. Or to think about revealing public information as James does. Or so it seems to me. Here and now.
What I “want” here is an argument form you [from anyone] that is able to demonstrate to me that how I think of conflicting value judgments as rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is not ultimately the existential embodiment of the dilemma embedded in dasein.
A “true” subjectivist? Do you mean the objective subjectivist? And this speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. I have explained to you [with respect to revealing public information or any other moral conflict] how I differentiate objective truths from subjective points of view.
How is the manner in which I think about this not rational?
[/quote]
James, i still see a silver lining. I do not know whether it will be able to shine more or lost in the blue drakness of the clouds.
Secondly, as you know, an optimist is always an optimist. I cannot stop trying for what i think my Dharma is.
iambiguous,
IMO, maybe the dichotomy between the concepts of the philosophical realist versus the philosophical anti-realists could highlight the difference between your intended differentiation of ‘objectivity’ versus ‘subjectivity’.
The pure objectivists who are philosophical realists would insist that reality has existed before human beings and will exists even if humans are extinct.
Individual subjective opinions aside, the pure subjectivist (philosophical anti-realists) adopt the stance that reality is inter-dependent (not dependent) with human conditions. Note Kant’s Copernican Revolution. I think the ‘dasein’ concept is also subjectivist in nature.
Well, I understand that and have been there. I certainly don’t disapprove of anyone probing and verifying for themselves. But let’s say that after some more exchange, you finally realize that there really is no doubt about it, Bigus very seriously could not care less about whatever any truth might be. Let’s say that you discover that he will disagree and argue with you regardless of anything you say and endless do so, lying and denying in any attempt to negate anything you say. When that point arrives, just out of curiosity, what will you do then?
There would be nothing that i can do further, except hoping and wishing him good luck for the future.
But, i would like to have an honest attempt before that.
Merely one incident transformed a robber into a Sage Balmiki, who later became the Adi kvi (first poet ever) of the Sanskrit, formulated the rules for the poetry and also wrote the epic of Ramayana.
All I want from moral objectivists is an argument that takes into account the manner in which I construe the relationship between dasein and conflicting goods when flesh and blood human beings wage one or another pitched battle over one or another opposing set of moral values.
Again, why don’t you pick one and we can examine it here on this thread.
Theoretically, sure, a God, the God might exist. After all, that is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. And there are various theoretical arguments out there by which God is defined and/or deduced into existence:
But, again, with so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice, objective morality – isn’t it absolutely imperative that mere mortals choose to worship and adore the right God.
Why our God and not theirs?
And how does someone demonstrate the actual existence of any particular God beyond what they claim to believe is true about Him “in their head”?
Same with regard to objective morality. How does one go about demonstrating that one set of behaviors is objectively right and another set is objectively wrong. Beyond what they think [intellectually, philosophically] is true “theoretically”.
Well, suppose we wake up tomorrow to the actual, empirical second coming of Christ. The Christians are now up in Heaven and folks like me are “left behind”. I suspect that the discussions between those of us who are left behind would transcend the merely theoretical.
Or if James or Zinnat were in fact able to establish the actual existence of their God, beyond the philosophical assumptions they make with respect to their definitions and deductions, the discussion would become considerably less “conceptual”.
But I did once believe in the existence of a God, the God. The Christian God. But this belief was just embedded in the things that I believed about Him “in my head”. Just as with James and Zinnat13. Or so it seems to me.
And that you would suggest that I may only be “trolling” here speaks considerably more about your own insecurities than mine. Or, again, so it seems to me.
Now, please address this:
[b]All I want from moral objectivists is an argument that takes into account the manner in which I construe the relationship between dasein and conflicting goods when flesh and blood human beings wage one or another pitched battle over one or another opposing set of moral values.
Again, why don’t you pick one and we can examine it here on this thread[/b].
That’s not the state of affairs. What can be said now which transcends the theoretical? Your answer is simple … nothing.
But they can’t do that because you have already decided that God doesn’t exist and all those discussions are theoretical. So why go on about it?
All thinking takes place in the head. So what? You can make reference to objective reality … you can think in your head about things which are actually outside of your head.
It seems to me that you are uninterested in what is being posted. Or you don’t think about it. Or you don’t understand it.
You just keep repeating the same posts hundreds of times. That qualifies as trolling AFAIK.
You want an argument : You will criticize it because an argument is words which depend on the meaning of other words.
But you will not accept anything which is not made up of words - for example, physical experience.
It has to take into ‘account the manner in which I construe the relationship between dasein and conflicting goods’ : It has to be formulated in a way which is aligned with your current belief system. Even if that belief system is completely counter to a valid and effective solution.
You want me to pick and present something : You will ignore everything that I say about it because it is counter to your POV. It will be dismissed as theoretical, word meanings, on skyhooks, not about dasein.
I have noted the distinction that I make here many times. Someone tells me that she believes in God. I tell her that I do not believe in God. So I ask her to explain to me how she knows that there is an existing God. And, in turn, how she knows that her God is the God. And she might tell me she has faith in His existence…or that her Bible tells her it is so. Or she might cite one of the arguments I linked to above from wiki. Or she might define Him into existence like James does. Or she might deduce Him into existence like zinnat13 does.
But why in the world should that be enough to convince me this God of hers does in fact exist? You just seem to be exasperated because, after folks come up with explanations like this, atheists still won’t/don’t believe in God. As though it simply isn’t necessary to provide actual substantive evidence that He exists.
Sure, you can think about the existence of God, just as you can think about the existence of your next door neighbor. But establishing that the neighbor does in fact exist is very different from establishing that God does in fact exist.
Just as, with respect to abortion, you can establish that some folks believe it is immoral and some folks believe it is moral. But how does the philosopher establish that, logically, objectively, it is really only one or the other? Aside from what she believes “in her head” to be true?
“It seems to me…”
That’s my point though. What something seems to you is not necessarily what it will seem to others. In fact, down the road, it may not seem that way to you. People change their minds all the time about these relationships. I know that I have.
But: There are still things that are objectively true precisely because they are in fact true objectively. The existence of these things have nothing to do with dasein. The existence of pregnancy. The existence of abortion as a medical procedure. The existence of Bibles. The existence of churches.
Besides, if you really feel that way about me, why in the world would you even bother to read what I post? Does someone make you?
This is preposterous. In fact, you and I had an exchange on another thread about the morality of abortion. As I recall, you argued that it was objectively moral and you gave your reasons. I argued from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy…and concluded that, philosophically, ethicists are not able to make that determination.
But then I also noted this does not mean philosophers can’t make it, only that [of late] no one has been able to convince me that moral/political issues like abortion can be grappled with and resolved objectively. But I did once believe this.
And, since my reasons revolve around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy [intertwined in the dilemma of dasein], you would have to address this if you wish to argue that my point of view was not reasonable.
We discussed this on that other thread as well. Here, I made note of the narcissistic egotist. For him, morality revolves solely around whatever he has managed to convince himself is in his own best interest. The pain and suffering of others is simply not his concern.
So how does the philosopher/ethicist demonstrate that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational and immoral?
Besides, there are many who oppose abortion as objectively immoral who might argue that abortion is in fact even worse. After all, the unborn baby is actually destroyed. And how could that be moral?
