Nihilism in a nutshell. 
This is the philosophy forum. So twaddle and glop are particularly uncalled for. 
Oh, well. I can only hope that zinnat13 responds. I can always count on him for intelligent discussions. [-o<
Whatâs to discuss?
One points out that morality exists so that people can live effectively in society. And that the acceptance of rape creates a society where the victim is traumatized and a large segment lives in fear.
The rapist does not agree or he does not care. Next point.
And so it goes. One cannot refer to any fact. All are dismissed with a âso whatâ.
Yes, and another points out that in aborting the unborn baby, he or she is not even given the chance to live effectively in society. Also, in aborting the baby you do considerably more than just âtraumatizeâ it.
But, according to you, abortion is objectively moral. Why? Because you create an argument that rationalizes it.
Now, I support the right of women to choose as well. But my rationalization revolves around the politics of abortion. In other words, I note that in the absense of a right to choose an abortion [u][b]many women will be forced to give birth against their will[/u][/b].
Conflicting goods, right?
But the manner in which any particular man or woman comes to think about abortion as a moral issue is going to be rooted in his or her own experiences, relationships and sources of information. Thatâs just common sense. Just as it is common sense to note that the biology of sex, pregnancy and abortion transcend the personal opinions of daseins.
But that is the point. In the absense of God such judgments come from mere mortals. And mere mortals will view themselves and the world around them from a particular subjective point of view. Again, why in the world do you image folks invent Gods? In part because He provides the transcending point of view from which we can judge any human behavior objectively.
Even Kant recognized the need for God here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174111&p=2192848&hilit=Christine+M.+Korsgaard#p2192848
Again, this, in my view, is what I like to call intellectual glop or twaddle. In no way shape or form is that the manner in which I construe these relationships. Thatâs simply what you reduce the âdasein dilemmaâ down to in order to assure yourself that it canât possibly be reasonable point of view. And certainly not a point of view that you will ever share.
And, indeed, when I was a Christian, I certainly never imagined that I would.
You wanted to discuss one moral problem. Itâs rape. Stop switching to something else.
Even a moral relativist will evaluate the situation by looking a the world and the consequences of actions. You are such a nihilist that you canât say what kind of evaluation is reasonable. You canât bring yourself to say that the rapist is wrong. You donât know what is unreasonable any more.
You threw away your process of reasoning and evaluating moral issues. Now you come here promoting it as the proper way to look at things. And you think that everyone who finds that itâs ineffective nonsense is afraid or in denial. LOL
The rapist is wrong because of this, this and this. Those are facts about the real world and not merely my opinions.
I donât need God to make that evaluation.
Done.
I will refer to the point (in blue) you posted and I agree with it to a certain extent.
However I do not agree with Kantâs use of the term âGodâ as an assumption (note merely an assumption and not a reified thing/entity).
IMO, Kant had good reasons to use the term âGod,â [even that he was aware this term is an illusion and loaded with garbage from organized religions] given the time and circumstances he was in then.
The intended concept and analogon within Kantian ethics can still work if we use the term âens realissimum.â
âiambiguousâ mentioned Kantâs objective morality is leveraged on âGod.â
However we need to get to the correct context to ensure it make sense, is rational and practical.
It is not the question of individualâs opinion or even a groupâs opinion.
When Kant brought in the term âGodâ he assumed that every human participating within the moral system has the capability to think like a god and collectively humanity has the Omni-powers of a God within a Kingdom of Ends.
It is on this basis that moral principles are established.
These moral principles are ones that no greater can be conceived.
âConceivedâ i.e. that is at best theoretical.
On this basis, âwhy a rapist is wrongâ is solidly grounded on the pillar moral principles of the ethical system.
(the justification process is very complicated, so I will give it a pass).
Since such moral principles are theoretical, they can only be used as a guide on a policy basis and thus cannot be directly legislated.
It is from this policy that dynamic moral maxims are established in practice and they are not likely to be the same as the theoretical ideals. Nevertheless there must be an awareness of how far such maxims are from the ideals.
These maxims can be adapted (culturally, socially and legally) to suit various circumstances and conditions.
This is where the jury has room to make certain variable judgments and the judge has the flexibility to impose the relevant punishments.
The ultimate of Kantian ethics is to get the maxims to be as close as possible to the impossible Ideals in time. This will entail a big task from humanity. Nevertheless, there are already signs humanity is progressing in such a direction.
Consequentialism is not effective in the long run because humans will be fighting with shifting goal posts where anyone, the tyranny of the majority or minority can âbicepâ through their own relative moral principles over the weak.
I did that already and will do that again whenever i will get the chance.
I can agree with that. But, this does/should not mean that we can/should not find the best solution from those.
Again, i see nothing to object in it. Everyone tries to establish values from his own prosess. Of course, those may right or wrong. That is why it necessary to discuss all viewpoints honestly and openly to find the best solution.
No, they do not. I did not claim that either. My point was that we are more knowledgeable than them now precisely because they made judgments, whether right or wrong, instead of keep those pending. That is enough to establish that making calls are better option than suspending those in every case. Furure will again judge and amend it for the better.
Let us restict ourselves to what is your subjectivism and my objectivism. Otherwise, we will end up discussing other persons instead of the issue in the hand.
We have not discussed any particular moral issue yet. So, how you concluded that i will not able to decide between the conflicting interests?
That is not ecatly what Barrett is suggesting, at least from that quote. he is saying something besides that too, to which i took the objection. Look again-
The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.
And, you supported his point view on this, which i showed you is not true.
Here i can agree with you and Barret so far.
I do not think that the phrase you are wrong gives the right impression here. You are wrong does not mean that you are fool or you are unable to reason. It merely means that you are wrong in my opinion or you are wrong as far as i understsand this issue. That opens the door to further discussion.
Disagreement does not entail hate, anger or disrespect. It is also not about superiority/inferiority either. Disagreement merely means that two persons have two different viewpoints and ready to discuss honestly and settle for the best or better, though that may or may not happen. That is the ideal objectivity to me.
Again, nothing to disagree with. I am not sure why are you reapeating this again and again. I am not denying that every one use to draw his conclusions from his experience or perception. There is no any other way either. But, that is not the issue. The issue is that should/how we decide the objective/best option?
Same issue here.
You yourself said not necessarily. I would like to go one step further from that and would say that in most of the cases, both sides of the argument do not have equal value. They may not cancel each other because it is not the maths but real life. But, one can decide better or worse from the two, for sure.
Okay. i will do that at the end of this post.
imb, it is not the question about me or any perticular person. Knowledge, through thoughts, lives forver and through that, some people also live forever. And, you do not need to go far away to see that happening. It is happening right here, in this thread, in this very post.
You quoted Berrnet here. I was unaware of him but you introduced him to me. You also shared some of his thoughts, which i partly accepted and partly rejected. Right.
So, in a sense, did i not have a small conversation with him through you? And, did i not again judge his thoughs and try to put a new amended version forth?
Again, consolation is not the right choice here. They do not do that for consolation or fearing from taking a call. They do that because they consider that those people, who told them about religious morality, are honest, wiser and wellwishers of them. So, they take their word.
No, actually i am not. Though, i am an ordinary person, just like millions others, but willingly/unwillingly, i took upon the job of investigation long ago. Thus, i do not take things at their face value. I also respect religious masters and consider them very knowledgeable and wise, but i do not take their word verbaitm. I have to satisfy myself.
I am not dismissive of the present. Actually, i am more interested in the present than the future. But, we have to settle for the best option available at the moment. We cannot sit back and say that is not possible. We have to take all subjective viewpoints into consideration and select the best from those. That is only solution that we have. We cannot keep the judgment pending for the perfect one, otherwise there would be complete choas, far worse than we can imagine.
I have no interest in making you concede at any point. That is not my purpose at all in having discussion with you. As i said in the other thread, i am not arguing with you at all.
I am aware of that now. It may seem odd to you that is precisely the siver lining that i mentioned to James.
No, you are not exactly making that point. Your position is slightly different.
You end up concluding that as subjectivity cannot overruled by objectivity right now, thus let us discard its idea and effort for it and try to live with subjectivity only. You are not ready to settle for the best option available for the moment but want perfection right now. But, i am willing to compromise for the moment and for the future. You are pointing out the problem only but not providing any solution. You are saying that this problem cannot be solved ever but i am saying that will be solved, now or later.
That is the crux of the difference between us. Otherwise, we are on the same page.
No. That is not true. I have very clearly mentioned many times in both threads I am not claiming that it is only me who has the right answers. All i am saying that this seems to me the best/perfect one. Did i not say that i willing to concede if anyone gives me better option? If i were so adamant for my viewpoints, would have i ever said that? I even gave to an example of ILP, when you asked. Did not i?
But, for some reasons, you tell me again and again that i am some sort of egomaniacal, who does not listen to anyone. You are not taking into account what is happening in this discussion right now, but passing judgments on me either based on your past experiences with other persons or what image you have in your mind of an objectivist. In spite of my repeated explanations, you go back to such assertions again and again. You want me to fit in that definition. You are not willing to accept that someone may overrule your perception of an objectivist. That is what is making you uncomfortable because it is negating your dasein. But, remember that is precisely the mistake that most of the objectivist does and you raise objection to that.
Even in that other thread of sexual liberty, which i unfortunately would not able to continue because of time constraints at that time, i first very humbly and honestly asked about the opinions of all persons. I neither tried try push my perception nor even once said that i am the wisest person around. I only invited an open discussion.
That is precisely what we are trying to do.
Whether that is rational or not, could be decided only after you give me such a definition, which i can truly understand. As far as i remember, you never clearly said what it takes to be a subjectivist. Or perhaps, i have missed that. That is why i am asking.
Would you define a subjectivist for me again?
Lastly, I will bring some points here from out other thread because I see those more pertinent here than there. I will make another post tonight, which will also include a particular moral topic for objectivity/subjectivity discussion.
with love,
sanjay
Yes, it should be possible to discuss these issues without referring to God.
Iambig insists that philosophers are not able to make arguments which solve the moral conflict. IOW, they have nothing to say which makes the claim of the rapist go away - he simply desires pleasure and thatâs it.
How would Kant deal with the rapist?
An objective morality has to measure, or at least rank, quantities which are accessible to people in general. Those would be things which are needed(food, water, shelter, security, âŚ) and felt ( pleasure, pain, fear,âŚ). These needs and feelings have an impact on society which may be measured in such concepts as prosperity and health.
The goal posts may shift, but they wonât shift that quickly if you concentrate on basic human needs.
Welcome to the discussion. Itâs good to see some new and different ideas.
I have already addressed rape as a moral issue. From the perspective of the narcissistic egotist. And instead of addressing my points you simply concluded that this point of view reflected, âNihilism in a nutshell.â
But when are you going to address my point regarding the manner in which many anti-abortion objectivists view abortion as far more egregious [morally] because the unborn baby is literally destroyed. Yet you argue that abortion is morally objective.
Do you even read my posts? My argument is that evaluations such as this are derived from subjective points of view rooted largely in dasein. And that folks on both sides can make arguments they deem reasonable. Why? Because they start with a set of assumptions that make their own conclusions âaxiomaticâ. The narcissist/egotist starts with the assumption that his pleasure is the center of the universe. And that satisfying this is always the right thing to do. How than does the ethicist demonstrate [in a world sans God] that this is necessarily irrational?
Now, subjectively, I do believe that rape is wrong. I believe that anyone who commits rape ought to be punished severely. But then I am not a narcissistic egotist. Nor am I one of the posters here at ILP that seem to have little but contempt for women. But that is rooted existentially in the manner in which I was predisposed by all the factors in my life to think as I do about this. Just as is the case with you. Only you are not saddled with the way in which I think about these things from within the framework of my âdasein dilemmaâ.
Here, in my view, you are simply making me the argument. I have thrown away the process of reasoning because I donât reason about these thing as you do. But that just brings me back to this: how lots and lots of moral objectivists have accused me of this while at the same time âreasoningâ about the relationship between identity and conflicting goods [pertaining to conflicting value judgments] from completely contradictory moral and political agendas.
And yet they all insist that I am wrong because I donât think like they do!!!
Now, think about the implications of that for a while. For example, the practical, existential implications. Out in, say, the world of actual human interactions. Whose evaluation must we then conclude is the one true objective evaluation? Always your own, right? Just as, with the other objectivists, it was always their own.
And I donât know how many times I have pointed out that, in my view, there is no âproperâ way in which to make these moral evaluations. At least not objectively. I think about it the way I do as dasein. Which is why in the past I thought about it in so many other different ways.
And all I can do here is come into contact with new arguments that might persuade me to think about it other than the way I do now. And, sure, there is always the possibility that an argument might be presented such that I come to conclude it reflects the objective truth.
Just not yours.
Rape you have already addressed but abortion you never tire of?
I donât think that you have dealt with it adequately. In its simplest form, It deals with the motivations and feelings of only two people - an ideal moral problem.
Yeah - they deem reasonable. The rapist determines what is moral? What is wrong with that picture?
The guy who wants to make lots of money determines that cheating people is moral?
Why do we have morality?
Simply because the way you post and the concept of dasein makes it about you to a great extent.
Thatâs not it.
Thatâs it. âThere is no way to reason about thisâ.
Therefore anything goes.
And thatâs the difference between us. I think that there is always a way to reason about these moral problems. There is one way which is the most productive. We may not know the best way now but our goal is to use the most productive way possible.
Or as mr reasonable would put it, âSimple!â
Strange that God can think and evaluate but humans canât.
Or is it just Godâs subjective opinion? And we canât argue with it because He is the 900 pound gorilla. The ultimate might makes right?
Or is it that God is the gatekeeper to heaven? And morality is not about anything that happens on Earth - not a system for making society function well ⌠itâs the key to eternal life.
Agree, it is possible to exclude the term âGodâ but retain the concept or rather Idea of totality, completeness and supremeness. We could use the more appropriate term, ens realissimum.
It is unfortunate Kant was inclined to use the term âGodâ due to the philosophical, social and political climate which was specific during his time.
Philosophers as individuals or in groups are not in a position to formulate nor impose universal moral principles.
Universal moral principles are supported by rational members of the Kingdom of Ends from the theoretical aspects of ethics.
Philosophers and others can switch hats into the practical aspects of ethics to interpret, discuss and implement the theoretical into practice.
Kant discussed a supreme universal moral principle [Categorical Imperative] which is supported by a set of solidly pillared moral principles.
The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is;
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
In a rape case, the rapist is using another human being as an end in satisfying his sexual lust. And this act contravenes the first formulation, i.e.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
Rape cannot be a universal and contradict the Golden Rule as no normal ordinary human being [excluding perversions] would accept being raped.
The next phase of ethics is how to reconcile the âoughtâ [theoretically no rape] to âisâ [practically no rape].
The reality is, due to human nature and conditions, rapes will happen. The question for ethics in practice is how to eliminate or reduce rapes to a tolerable minimum. The next phase will involve improving the moral quotient of each individual and setting up of judicial measures as a deterrent.
There are many attempts to objectify human values and there is a continual improvement and progress in this field of axiology.
Note the Hartmanâs Profile Value.
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/about/hartman-value-profile/
We should look and ground ethics on a goal post that are not likely to shift at all, at least possible in theory. This near âpermanentâ fixed principle will then guide the other principles that are likely to shift in various degrees.
Thanks.
Sure. And hopefully this will be done in the context of moderation, negociation and compromise. Within a political context that champions the rule of law and democracy. Though [out in the real world] political economy will always be a factor as well.
All I am waiting for is an argument able to demonstrate [to me] that, with respect to actual human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments, it is in fact the best [most rational, objective] possible solution.
Can you think of one?
Itâs just that you and I tend to go in different directions with respect to how optimistic we are that this can in fact be accomplished. From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is that there always is a right and a wrong behavior. Mine is that, while theoretically this might be the case, all we really exchange âdown hereâ are subjective points of view derived from dasein and expressing conflicting [subjective] assumptions about what is or is not moral behavior.
On the contrary, their âjudgmentsâ [in my view] were/are more closely in alignment with instinct, the id, the libido. What does it mean to speak of primitive man or apes or any other animals farther down the evolutionary chain, making right or wrong judgments? Their beahviors are largely ruled by the reptilian, more primitive, components of the brain.
My point is that, based on my own many, many experiences with moral objectivists, they seemed to embrace one or another âwhole truthâ because 1] it allows them to anchor âIâ there and 2] it obviates âthe agony of choice in the face of uncertaintyâ by allowing them to conclude that morality can be reduced down to either/or. They then come to embrace [intellectually] one or another objective âmoral lawâ [their own by and large] as a scientist would embrace the physical âlaws of nature.â The rest [in my view] then revolves [either more or less] around this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Also, when you say things like âwhich I showed you is not trueâ that, to me, is just another example of the objectivist asserting that his own point of view is more rational and that I must be wrong because I do not agree with it.
To me, it is basically your own rendition of this:
[b]phyllo:
The rapist is wrong because of this, this and this. Those are facts about the real world and not merely my opinions.
[/b]
Right.
Now, you might claim that, unlike him, you are merely pointing out the difference in our opinions, but it really does not seem like that to me. Instead, it seems closer to the frame of mind that revolves around the assumption that there are right and wrong behaviors and that the objectivst point of view is the right one.
But, again, with you [unlike Phyllo], we are never able to really explore this existentially because you donât bring your theoretical assumptions down into the world of human interactions â existential relationships that come into conflict precisely because many are convinced that their own moral agendas are the most rational/ethical.
I repeat it because it is the very foundation of my argument that until the objectivist is able to address this point how can she possibly propose an objective moral agenda with respect to the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars.
How can she arrive at the âobjective/bestâ option when adopting one point of view [that the baby has a right to be born] means rejecting the other point of view [that the pregnant woman has the right to choose to destroy it]. We canât/donât live in a world where both agendas are able to prevail.
And you can note these conflicting goods with respect to every other issue in which there are many folks on one side of it and many folks on the other.
The objectivist [my objectivist] sets himself up as someone who is able to decide which sideâs argument encompasses âthe greater valueâ. But, again, many objectivists simply will not bring this assumption down to earth by integrating it into actual contexts relating to issues like abortion and homosexuality. Instead, their conclusions are predicated more on their definitions and deductions, their analysis, their argument â the conclusions of which are said to be true because it is assumed that the premises are true.
This speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. The fact that my âthoughtsâ will live on after I am dead and gone, changes nothing about the fact that [for eternity perhaps] âIâ will be dead and gone. This is true even for someone like Barack Obama. Dead for an atheist like me is dead. I gain no consolation knowing that my daughter will live on or that my words might be read here. Yet you are somehow able to think about it differently. But then you also believe in the Christian God. Or seem to. So this means that, in however a manner that you do think about it, there is immortality floating around inside your head somewhere. And all you have to do is believe it, right?
I mean, what do you think Willam Barrettâs reaction to all of this is right now? Well, if my frame of mind is correct, he is well on his way back to star stuff, isnât he? So he doesnât have a reaction now. And he never, ever will again.
Here is how I react to an argument like this:
There is âyouâ and there are all of the particular experiences, relationships and sources of information you have encountered existentially in the course of living your life.
But then there are all of the unimaginably vast experiences, relationships and sources of information that you have not had. What âyouâ have come to believe about human reality and the nature of existence is but a tiny, tiny fraction of all that possibly can be known.
But this never really perturbs most moral objectivists because what they have come to believe about reality and existence [re philosophy and religion] revolves around what they have defined and deduced the truth here to be. Then we are back to the internal logic of their analysis.
Yes, you are satisfied regarding your conclusions here. But how do you go about demonstrating to me that these conclusions are âfor all practical purposesâ applicable to the world of human interactions that come into conflict â either over opposing moral prescriptions/proscriptions or over the existence of GodâŚa God, the God.
Not wholly dissmissive, no. But to the extent that an objectivist truly does believe in a God, the God â or in the existence of objective morality â they are able to shrug off the conflicts in the âhere and nowâ because they believe that one day it will all be resolved by an omniscient/omnipotent God and/or that âtheoreticallyâ philosophers will finally arrive at an argument that allows mere mortals to resolve their conflicting behaviors rationally. That way they can argue that if someone refuses to behave in a certain way it can be demonstrated that they are comporting themselves irrationally. But this is always either âlaterâ for some objectivists or for others by insisting it already has been resolved. In other words, one need but agree with them about abortion, homosexuality etc.
Again, I am not arguing that it can not be doneâŚonly that I have not come upon an argument [of late] that convinces me that it can. I simply point out how folks on opposite sides of the moral quandaries we are most familiar with are able to pose arguments that the other side cannot make go away. And then I ask the moral objectivists to name an issue they are most interested in [or passionaite about] so that we can discuss the actual existential conflicts âdown hereâ.
Then this is the part I am still most perplexed about. Why? Because basically that is my own argument. That, since folks on both sides of a moral conflict are able to pose reasonable arguments, we are left only with moderation, negociation and compromise pertaining [ultimately] to the legal prescriptions/proscriptions that any particular human ccommunity imposes re ârules of behaviorâ. And that, at best, this would come to revolve around any particular intersubjective consensus they can reach.
I have thus always assumed that any examples you give are predicated on the assumption that âlaterâ the conflicts can/will all be resolved by the Christian God â or âlogicallyâ through the tools of philosophy delineating the objective parameters of ârational discourseâ. I still do not really grasp at all [as with James and his âReal Godâ] how âdown hereâ and âup thereâ are intertwined in your head. It completely baffles me. And, in part, because your focus is almost always intellectually, scholastically, theoretically, conceptually, auto-didactically.
So, it is not a âdefinitionâ that I want to fit you into, but a practical, existential context whereby you âillustrate the textâ more substantively. Either you are able to demonstrate how human behaviors can be encompassed within the parameters of an objective morality or you can not. Either you will [perspicuously, persuasively] connect the dots between this objective morality and a God, the God or you will not.
I merely assume that if, philosophically/theologically/scientifically, someone out in the world already had come up with this objective argument it would be all over the internet. Akin to someone coming up with an actual demonstration that a God/the God/his God does in fact exist.
You say you are trying to do this. Okay. But all I ask [with respect to an issue like abortion] is that you give me just a hint of what this argument would sound like â with respect to the conflicting goods embedded in âallowing the unborn to liveâ or âallowing pregnant women the right to choose to destroy itâ.
But then I suspect: donât you really mean [as with James] that you want me to give you a definition that you can agree with? That has always been my experience in discussing these things with moral objectivists.
As for the definition letâs first go to the dictionary:
[b]Subjectivist:
- The quality of being subjective.
- a. The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states.
b. A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience. - Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. For example, ethical subjectivism holds that individual conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.
[/quote]
[/b]
Now, the quandary that is solipsism aside, what I always try to do here is to make the distinction between 1] things/relationships that we can encompass objectively like math, science, empirical facts, the logical rules of language etc., and 2] things/relationships we merely attempt to encompass based [at least in part] on our own subjective opinions rooted in dasein.
And that this [given the components of my own existential narrative] revolves in large part around identity and value judgments. In other words, the part where we are not discussing what it can be determined that men and women in fact do but the part where we are debating what men and women ought to do in order to be thought of as rational and ethical and politically correct.
Of course you donât. You are an objectivist. And, from the perspective of the moral/political objectivist, an adequate answer is, perforce, the one that he would give. We all get that part.
Hell, for the moral objectivist, even all of the other moral objectivists who donât agree with him are wrong.
Well, if a narcissistic egotist [who happens to be a misogynist] starts with the assumption that his own pleasure/fulfillment is the center of the moral universe, how is that necessarily an irrational point of view?
Again, many, many religionists [including Christians] will basically note the same thing. They confront the atheists with the argument that we need an omniscient/omnipotent God in order that mere mortals can be certain about the distinctions we make between moral and immoral behavior.
Then various humanists will come up with their own arguments â âenlightenedâ political dogmas predicated on assumptions they insist are predicated in turn on Reason.
Now when are you going to address this:
âŚthe manner in which many anti-abortion objectivists view abortion as far more morally egregious than rape because the unborn baby is literally destroyed. Yet you argue that abortion is morally objective.
Here is a thread that encompasses the manner in which, in my view, the narcissistic egotist [qua uberman, qua âasceticâ] rationalizes rape.
And here in turn are all of the objections to his arguments. Objections that, subjectively, existentially, I share myself.
I know that my own emotional and psychological reaction to rape revolves around outrage. In part because, as a political activist, I came into contact with many women who were in fact raped. Some as children.
And I believe that those who do rape should be punished. Severly punished.
But how does my own personal reaction [or your own personal reaction] come to encompass an objective truth about the morality of rape? A necessary philosophical/ethical truth.
And why is the emotional and psychology reaction of the anti-abortionist to the killing of the unborn not but [to him or her] another example of how those who embrace the pro-choice side rationalize what to the anti-abortionist is deemed to be literally a human holocaust?
In other words, for some anti-abortionists, abortion is even more indefensible [morally] than rape.
Moderation, negotiation or compromise, whether social or political, does not serve the actual purpose. Yes, those can bring some stability but that is not the ultimate goal.
The ultimate goal is moving towards betterment, not for any particular person or group, but for the society, as a whole. And, that can be achieved only by open, honest and detail discussion, not from any compromises.
There are many like the one you mentioned in the other thread; capital punishment. Or, you can take anyone of your chioce. I would not mind anyone.
I told you how it could be done, which seems fine and also reasonable to me.
Would you like to tell me why it could not be done?
Not exactly. You are misreading me at this point from the very starting of our discussion. Please pay attention to this-
Extremes are not possible to achieve in either way. There cannot be a perfect right or wrong ever. So, we have to settle for what seems to be better or the best at the moment.
There is some difference in between what i am saying and what you are interpreting. And, this is precisely where i differ from what perception you have of a typical objectivist in your mind.
Please take note of this for the further discussion.
Secondly, I do not see any problem in different people having different viewpoints. That is bound to happen and no one can stop that ever. On the contrary, this must happen and we should welcome it, instead of opposing. That tells that the intellectual evolution of the society is still going on and not halted.
The real problem comes when people stop listening others honestly and became the victim of their ego. Discuss, debate and argue and let the best come out.
Thirdly, what is the actual purpose of exchanging the views? Merely exchanging the views itself, or there should be something else too? Can alone exchanging the views settle any issue, unless all parties conclude something from that exchange?
I am now saying that that issues always comes in pure black or white. No, they do not. There may be some grey area between those extremes. But, in that case, we should go which at least seems to be brighter. Merely saying that this is grey not pure white, thus should not be taken as a decision, does not serve any purpose.
That does not address my point in any way. From where or how they derived their judgments, or even how naive those were, is not the issue. I am neither claiming that they made very wise and calculated decisions.
The thing is, can you deny that we are now in better position than apes? And, if that is true, it must be the result of those naive judgments.
The actual point is, no matter how apes decided to take a call, whether right or wrong, that helped and shaped our present. And, we are certainly intellectually better than them. Then, why the same methodology cannot work now? Can you give any reason?
Why do you stop merely at exchanging the views. If we are good or wise enough to exchange the views, why we cannot find the best from those, by using the same methodology of exchanging the views?
Firstly, opinions are merely opinions, not laws of nature. I did not say that. I very clearly said that those are my subjective opinions, which seem to me objective/better/best for now, though they are open to challenge. So, please do not try to paint me in which color you want to see me in. I am not going there.
Why should i not say that i showed you when i actually showed that. Yes, there maybe some fault in my showing. But, is it not your duty to show me that my showng is not right? Unless, you do not do that, merely complaining is not enough.
To me, that is Escapism, running away from confrontation and seeking the refuge behind the argument of subjectivity.
Secondly, if you any problem with my argument, you are welcome to contradict that. I do not have any issue with that. I told you what i think is right. If you are not okay with that, argue that and plead for your opinion. I will accept your opinion if your version would seem more reasonable. What is the problem in that? What else we are supposed to do here?
But, the real problem is that you do not put any your counter forth and merely keep saying that it is just other personâs subjective opinion. That is how you carry on with you phrase of in your head. And, that is precisely why others get irritated after a certain point. You have to tell me why i am wrong and will accept that. But, for that, you have to come up with something to compare.
If i can tell you how my opinion is right according to me, why you cannot tell me how that is wrong according to you? Is there any problem in that?
Now, coming to the Battett issue, for which you accused me of showing-
MLk clearly said that racism is wrong. Gandhi clearly said that untouchability is wrong. Margaret Tether was a pure objectivist in his extreme rightist economic policies and so was Golda Meir.
Can anyone say that these persons were taking cover of anything, or afraid of taking decisions? History is full of such objectivists who stood up from the crowd and took the call. Yes, some were right and some were wrong too, like Hitler. But, they stood up out strongly for what they believe. All these three examples stood against the established practice of their times. So, how you or Barrett can call them afraid of confrontation?
I can name enumerable such persons but can you do the same in the support of Barrett!
Again, the very definition of the subjectivism suggests that they are undecided people by mindset. They cannot stand the confrontation thus drop the shoulders and say because nothing can be decided ever so no one should even attempt..
Allow me to carry my argument a bit further. I would like to argue that objectivity is very cause of the most of our development.
Every innovator has to be an objectivist by default. The same is true for every entrepreneur.
Can an inventor invent anything without having firm belief that his assumption is right? He does not have any a priori proof of his assumption. It is merely his strong belief/objectivism that leads him to invention. The history of the science is full of such people. I do not have to name those.
Coming to entrepreneurship, what do you think of legends such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Were they not objectivists, who strongly believed in their innovative ideas? Can both of them become so successful ever if they were undecided or confused about their ideas?
I think I have enough to believe that Brraett got it all wrong. And, I also think that I have pleaded enough to show you how he is wrong. Now, it is your turn to show me how I am wrong and he is right.
Yes.
I have been explained my position very clearly above.
imb,
I have said you many times before and once again repeating not to bring others between us. I do not know what has been happened between you and others and neither interested. I cannot and will not plead or comment on what others said or not. I am discussing with you and you should do the same. Let your baggage go, which seems to be too sticky.
Do not tell or discuss with me what other objectivists do. Tell me only what you found or think of me.
So far, in both the threads, have you ever seen me saying that PK, Atheris or Lev said this or that and you should defend them? Would you do that? If not, why you are expecting me to defend what others said?
imb, [u]you seem to have developed a quite firm opinion about objectivists and want to see me from that very lens too. And, when you find that something is different, you tend to shift the focus from me to others, because that is more suitable to you to argue.
You are not realizing that you are behaving exactly the same as those others do, to whom you are criticizing. You are not ready to accept me as what i am. Yet, you claim that you are subjectivist! Do you not see some contradiction in that?
On the other hand, even being an objectivist, i am honestly trying to understand what you are saying, not what i heard from other subjectivists.
Why i/we cannot apply theories on the ground zero? Did i just not connect my definition of objectivism to the real people of the real world while arguing against Barrett?
I can do the same for moral issues too. Choose capital punishment or any other issue of your liking and we will discuss that. Let us see how it goes.
I am well aware of the fact that this argument is not only the very foundation but is also the only cornerstone, on which subjectivism is based. There is nothing else whatsoever. That is why you have to bring it again and again in different formats.
You can choose abortion instead of capital punishment, if you see it more appealing form subjectivism. I would not mind.
Not true. We actually live and both agendas also use to live in this very world. Is that not happening right now? The only problem is that the issue is not settled either way.
I would not escape from bringing that concept of greater value to down to the earth. That is precisely why i initiated that thread of Liberty of Sex. Unfortunately, due to some time constraints at that time, i would not able to continue that.
You may not be aware of the fact that I have done that before too. Below are two threads in which I have been engaged discussing homosexuality, and without quoting the God ever. You may have a look-
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=180515 (From page 10 onwards only)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=184804
Of course.
Here you are misreading the term of thoughts will live. I did not say that in the context of any God, afterlife or immorality. It is neither the issue of theist/atheist nor any idea of immorality was roaming around in my mind when i said that.
The context was the mankind or society, as a whole. We all use electricity but none from the present living humans invented this. Benjamin and Faraday, with many other scientists were responsible for that. It was their brainchild but still very much alive within the society. The same is for all our inherited knowledge. Our predecessors are still living with us in the form that heritage. That is what I mean by living forever.
You are forgetting that he is still pleading his case to me in the form of you. His thoughts/ideas are still very alive within you. If he is gone forever and by all means, how come you know about him? Mankind has kept him alive in one form or other.
True.
True again.
I am not responsible of what others say. My responsibility ends at me.
They may claim that the truth lies with them only. I am not claiming that. My only claim is that this seems to be truth to me. I am aware and accept that many others will also have their own version of truth. I am ready to discuss with them to find the best version.
I asked you above to choose a topic which suits you the most and we can get on with that. I am not taking my step back.
I am not passing the buck to the God but ready to take on the issue. You need not to repeat this over and over.
That should be the aim, whether could be achieved or not.
Every notion should be open to challenge, now or in the future. Otherwise that may lead to stagnation. If society would find a better alternative, it should shift to that and discard its previous one.
Then, for what you are arguing?
That can happen only when you will discuss anything with anyone, and the other person would also do the same.
That happens only when either or both parties are not honest with the issue and discussion. If the intention would be to find the better alternative, they will reach at an agreement for sure, sooner or later. But, if the intention would be only to show their intellectuality and not to concede to other at any point, there would be no agreement ever.
Result depends on the intention, nothing else.
I am well aware of that. And, that is what making you uncomfortable. I can sense this through your assertions.
Which kind of objectivist this fellow is who is ready to concede?
I am aware of that too. The only difference between you and me is that i do not want to wait for the perfect solution to manifest but ready to take the call with the best of my ability right now. But, you hesitate in doing so.
I do not see anything wrong in that.
As i said before, most of the morality does not the need the Concept of the God to be provoked. Rational discourse is sufficient.
I am able to explain the morality just because the dots are somewhat connected in my mind. But, i need not to explain those dots. All issues regarding down here can be easily explained by the explanations of down here only. I will not use any religious obligation to explain morality.
Why? Treat both threads separate, as you are having discussions with two different persons. One is in this thread and the other one is another thread. Do not borrow between both threads. We are discussing subjectivity/objectivity in this thread. Let us stick to that only. Do not raise the Issue of God here. Keep it to the other thread only.
To some extent, it is a compulsion, because we are dealing with such a subject.
As i said above, God is required in this thread. And, i will certainly bring down the theory of objectivity to the ground and connect it with the daily life of a common man.
Many people get it right but they are not able to explain their position in rational way, or others are not in the position to listen them in a rational way. Both play their part.
First decide what particular moral issue you want to discuss. Capital punishment, Abortion, homosexuality or something else. But, after deciding, do not jump to other moral issues but stick to that only. I am okay with anyone. It is up to you to decide.
There is no need to be suspicious. I do want to you to give me such definition with which i can agree. I only want to know what you think of a subjectivist. That would help me to communicate with you. That is all.
Now, the quandary that is solipsism aside, what I always try to do here is to make the distinction between 1] things/relationships that we can encompass objectively like math, science, empirical facts, the logical rules of language etc., and 2] things/relationships we merely attempt to encompass based [at least in part] on our own subjective opinions rooted in dasein.
And that this [given the components of my own existential narrative] revolves in large part around identity and value judgments. In other words, the part where we are not discussing what it can be determined that men and women in fact do but the part where we are debating what men and women ought to do in order to be thought of as rational and ethical and politically correct.
[/quote]
Okay, though that is more an explanation than a mere definition.
with love,
sanjay