I am not that kind of objectivist, which you have been perceived in your mind. Like others, I do not claim that my version is perfect. I only say that that seems to be perfect or better at least to me. Yet, I am ready to listen and amend/change my version if anyone else puts better alternative forth.
But, let us not wait for the perfection to manifest. We do not know when that moment will come, or whether that will ever happen or not, thus we should embrace what emerges out the best within the available options through discussion and consensus, and move on with that. Doing that, we at least move one step ahead.
It is also possible that, even after discussion and forming consensus, we can still make the wrong decision. I am not denying that possibility. But, even in that case, we at least will be able to realize what went wrong. That will add to our knowledge and will be helpful in the future decision making.
But, if we stop making decision fearing that it may turn out as a wrong one, our progress would be halted. We should let the momentum of the learning going, instead of halting fearing the failure. Failure and success, both are the part and parcel or the process/progress and we have to bear failure also, if we want to gain some successes.
Let us not stop a hungry man from eating bread in the anticipation of three course meal.
Secondly, you have been accusing me all along the discussion that my theories are either very highly intellectual or do not have any pertinence with the real world.
That is happening merely because the issue in hand is of that nature. I am neither not doing that intentionally nor avoiding any particular moral confrontation to discuss.
Let me also tell you that my line of thinking is even more radical than you as far as the purpose and the relation of the philosophy with the common man is concerned.
Below are some quotes from one of my first own thread at ILP-
I hope these quotes will give a fair idea what i think about the purpose of philosophy and how it should relate itself with the daily life of a common man.
Okay, but you seem to argue that, with respect to abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment etc., rational human beings can, using the tools of philosophy, arrive at an objective moral resolution. Now just theoretically, but eventually “later”…
And then somehow you link this “in your head” to God. The Christian God, presumably.
But:
Whether with respect to abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment or any other moral conflagration revolving around the subjective points of view, conflicting goods and political economy, what does that objective argument sound like?
But how is this realistically applicable with regard to abortion? How could any “perfect” answer address the existential reality that if abortion is deemed to be objectively immoral then some women will be forced to give birth against their will? And if abortion is deemed to be objectively moral then many of the unborn will be destroyed.
And we all know that what is deemed “one step ahead” by those who embrace homosexual rights is deemed “one step back” by those who do not. And how are the arguments pro or con here not rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? That is the argument I keep looking for from those who embrace one or another rendition of moral objectivism.
And that is before we get to the argument I make with respect to “dasein’s dilemma”:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Believe it or not, much of my participation in exchanges like this revolves precisely around me trying to come up with an argument [u][b]able[/u][/b] to persuade me otherwise. And, in turn, I suspect that many of the reactions to my argument here revolve around folks who begin to suspect that the argument might be applicable to [u][b]them[/u][/b] too.
In other words what if moral nihilism [u][b]is[/u][/b] the most reasonable manner in which to view these realationships “out in the world”?
I am certainly not arguing that we can stop making decisions. On the contrary, I point out over and again [as an existentialist] that we are indeed “condemned to be free” whenever we choose to interact with others in one or another social, political and economic context. But that this freedom resolves over and again around “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”.
Thus what moral objectivists seek to do [in my opinion] is to take that uncertainty away. Either by rooting their own certainty in God or in Reason. Or, as with you and James, in intertwining it in both. I just do not really have a clue how you manage to accomplish that. At least pertaining to actual moral conflicts “down here”.
What I point out to you over and again is that I do not understand [much at all] how you intertwine science, philosophy and religion with respect to actual human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments “out in the world” of flesh and blood human interaction.
And what are the quotes you give but more examples of what I deem to be abstract “analytical” arguments in which the points you make are true [by and large] only to the extent to which another shares the same meaning you give to the words that define and defend more words still?
You make a good argument for bringing philosophy closer to the ground. But it never quite reaches it with respect to conflicting value judgments that spawn conflicting behaviors that spawn all manner of terrible consequences for actual flesh and blood human beings.
More or less, yes. Let us try to reach at an objective solution. If that is not possible, let us at least agree on the best option available for a moment. But, do not consider it final and make it open to further investigation and amendment too, if required.
Not later but right now. I gave you option to choose any subject of your chioce to see it objective/subjective sides. But, you did not come up with any particular one. The delay is from your end, not mine.
I again ask you to choose a subject. What about the capital punishment?
imb, i am little confused. Sometimes you accuse me that i do not connect the dots and sometime you blame me for connecting the dots!
First make sure in your mind what actually do you want to say.
You should come up with a chosen subject instead of repeating this sentence again and again, and then we will see how objective/subjective arguments look like.
imb, i do not want to discuss here and there and bits and pieces. Unfortunately and unknowingly too, you have a habit of having this type of discussion with people. That is why those end up nowhere. You need to understand that this can be irritating for others.
If you think that abortion can be a good case to test objectivity/subjectivity, it is fine. I am okay with that. But, then do not bring homosexuality or capital punishment into that. All i want from you to stay on the topic.
Yes, legalizing homosexuality may be one step backwards to many people. I am also included in that list. But, the society decided otherwise in its wisdom and i accept that decision too. But, my acceptance does not forfeit my or anybody else’s right to question that decision again.
Yes, those arguments are very much rooted in their dasein, but this does not mean that they must have same value by default. Some may be slightly better or bad than others. That is why bringing those all together is important to let the best one comes out from the lot.
That may be true in your case but not necessarily in all.
At the end of the day, no two things in this world are equal. There must be some difference, no matter how minuscule it may be. One has to look for those subtle differences.
I know that is your ultimate destination where no rule stands. Entropy or anarchy is more reasonable position for you.
Then, what else are you arguing for?
You seem to be pleading all the time that no objective decision cannot be made ever, thus, we should stop trying to find one and get on with moral nihilism. Is this not what you said just above?
In that case, what is your solution to go beyond that uncertainty? Nihilism for all verticals of life?
imb, everyone knows in this world that there is conflict of interests at every step. But, merely repeating this over and again is not the solution either. People want solution. They already know what is the problem.
In your words, folks do not want hear philosophical rhetoric but want solutions for their day do day problems.
imb, choose a subject instead of repeating that. And, then we will see.
imb, i hope that you will come up a particular subject to discuss objectivity/subjectivity in your next post. Let us get down there.
That begs a question, why are you interested how i relate those moral questions to the God, which you claim that is only in my head? Do you belive the God which resides in my head only? If not, why are you bothered about that and not restrict yourself to societal issues of down there?
Secondly, i connect the dots between up there and down here, will you not accuse me that i have no logical reasoning other than the faith of such God that is in my head only?
I can gutrantee you that you do that without wasing a moment.
imb, if you show that post of mine and your some posts to any third person, he will tell you who is doing rethoric and who is right on the money. Try it.
Read my threads and see how philosophy can get on with the morality too besides investigating subtle issues.
If you want to see that, choose a subject, and in spite of very limited knowledge of philosophy, i will show you how philosophy can and should handle morality.
Let’s just say that I missed this part. And I have always invited you [right from the start] to bring this down to earth re abortion or homosexuality or capital punishment.
But, sure, here, capital punishment is fine with me.
Is the death penalty moral or immoral? How do we determine this objectively? And, for those who believe in a God, the God, how is a philosophical exploration of this separate from their religious faith?
No, in my view, the reason those discussions go “nowhere” is that others have not been able to address [to my own satisfaction] the existential reality of conflicting goods embedded in conflicting value judgments that precipitate conflicting behaviors out in the world of actual human interaction.
Regarding capital punishment, I have addressed this previously at ILP:
To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been able to clearly demonstrate how this or that actual execution is in fact moral or immoral. I just make the distinction here between our capacity to show that a particular execution actually did take place and the rightness or wrongness of it. For example, I am rereading Norman Mailer’s The Executioner’s Song. Who would argue that Gary Gilmore was not executed? But lots of folks will argue about whether it was moral.
And:
There are objective facts we can bring to any capital crime. What did the criminal do? Who did he do it to? What was his intention? What might have provoked him? What were the particular aggravating and extenuating circumstances involved? What were the actual consequences of the crime?
And:
Joe’s family may be supportive of capital punishment because they want Jack executed for murdering their beloved husband, son, father, uncle, nephew, cousin. It is good if Jack dies. Meanwhile Jack’s family is opposed to capital punishment because they don’t want the state to execute their beloved husband, son, father, uncle, nephew, cousin. It is good if Jack lives. And yet there may well be members of both families who actually think contrary to all the others in their own family. Why? For any number of reasons. And this in my view is rooted in dasein.
How then would you respond to these points?
What I am arguing for with respect to conflicting value judgments is the need to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise within the political framework of democracy and the rule of law.
But then I note in turn how, pertaining to myself, I become ensnared in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
So, I engage in exchanges like this one in order to come upon an argument that might yank me up out of it.
Or, perhaps, yank others down in to it?
Yes, and the moral/political objectivists are always fully prepared to offer solutions, aren’t they? As long as the one you choose is their own.
[b]If 1] you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God and 2] this God is linked to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation on the other side of it, what is really the point of pursuing philosophy?
Philosophy would seem to be either in alignment with a God, the God, your God or not.[/b]
So: Is the God that you believe in omniscient/omnipotent? Is there a Scripture – said to constitute the Word of God –
written so as to impart to the true believers prescriptions and proscriptions regarding virtually every imaginable human behavior?
I am simply curious how those who pursue this philosophically and theologically integrate both pertaining to actual conflicting human behaviors embedded in actual conflicting value judgments.
Now, with respect to capital punishment, you will either do this or you will not.