Well, if this more or less homogenous community of 10,000 encompasses the only community that has ever existed on Earth…how different might that be from the same community that is considerably more heterogenous because their ancestors came from many different cultures going back centuries around the globe?
In other words, in regard to a context in which those in the community have come to conflicting political prejudices regarding that which constitutes moral and immoral behaviors given such issues as “abortion, gun laws, the role of government, animal rights, conscription, gay weddings, vaccinations. And on and on and on.”
Polemics? I love it!
As long as you don’t configure into my Stooge or me into yours.
On the other hand, what on earth is that supposed to mean?!
In my estimation, another intellectual contraption in which the rules apply only to that which you insist is true about the words you use to describe your imaginary world.
Or, rather, so it seems to me.
Me, I’m more interested in what the 10,000 have to say about behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions when one of their own becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be. Or when those in power mandate that all 10,000 must be vaccinated. Or stop eating meat. Or turn in their guns.
What “ballpark agreement” then?
Instead, if I do say so myself, you still prefer to discuss it up in the clouds:
From my frame of mind, this sort of didactic “analysis” is your context. And there are any number of folks here who will be happy to accommodate you “up there”. But you either make observations of this sort applicable to a discussion/debate relating to a set of circumstances in which those on both sides of any particular conflicting good weigh in with arguments that are then configured into actual legislation enforced by actual government authorities, or we are both just wasting each other’s time.
The Karpel Tunnel Syndrome?
Binary thinking? From someone who, in regard “I” at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy has thought himself [here and now] into believing that his own fractured and fragmented “self” is on a journey from the cradle to the grave in what he has thought himself in turn [here and now] to believe is an essentially meaningless and purposeless world?
But who, even in regard to this, recognizes how a new experience, relationship or idea might prompt him to change his mind. As he has done so many times over the years about any number of things.
Tell that to the millions around the globe who embrace their own rendition of God. I may not believe in God. You may not believe in God. But that is by no means proof that God does not exist. And, so much more to the point, out in the real world where there are millions who do believe in Him, there’s no getting around our interactions with them. They do believe and will behave accordingly.
Note where I have ever argued that morality has no use. On the contrary, given a world in which mere mortals have been clashing for centuries over any number of wants and needs, morality – or whatever you wish to call “rules of behavior” – are not only useful but fundamentally necessary.
But: better that they revolve more around 1] might makes right/survival of the fittest 2] right makes might/philosopher kings or God or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise/democracy and the rule of law? Or “in reality” what combination of the three in any particular community — of 10 or 10,000 or 10,000,000.
But first we’ll need a context.
Great…another flippant attempt to be clever? That, given a particular set of circumstances where, among others, the liberals and the conservatives here of an objectivist bent will tell us precisely how far all moral thinking must go. Straight to their own point of view. Up in the clouds as likely as not.
To wit:
Well, from my frame of mind, it gets even stupider the few times some of them do bring their intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds.
And I suspect that any number of them know this…so they don’t.