It seems like you do do this. You explain why one can know things in science but not about morals. To do this you present models of reality and what is possible for humans.
But my general Point was more like, if you really believed you could not know, then you wouldn’t waste time criticizing them, mocking them or trying to show they are being silly. I see below that you have pulled back from political activity. Well, THAT is consistant. But this is political activity online.
You would do what you want and avoid objective type discussions, like this one. That is what someone who actually believed there was no way to know what is moral or not would do. I mean, they might kill themselves. They might be hypocrits and enter these types of discussions - perhaps just to fuck with people. But if they actually believed there was no way to even know if objectivists are doing harm, which means if any possible moral position is detrimental or beneficial, then ONE MIGHT AS WELL DO WHAT ONE WANTS AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO. If you want to be kind to people, well, you might as well do that. If you want to hurt them, well do that, if the risks involved do not create counterdesires. If you want to go to a Movie, yuo would do that.
That is what is left when there are no morals, or when one Thinks one cannot know what is right, when it is mere guesswork.
Sure, but for all you know it might be a good thing. So you don’t know if challenging it, as you repeatedly do is doing more harm than good. It’s a coin toss. Seems like a waste of energy to me, given your perspective.
But you present this as if you have to solve this problem Before you could interact with people. Hardly. Most activities do not require working this out or even raising the issue.
And you can just say - oh, I don’t like that
if, for example your chess, bowling, book club, beer drinking partner
makes a racist remark.
Maybe they will want to defend the remark by appeals to what seem like objective arguments.
You can just repeat, Oh, but I don’t like that. But I am enjoying your Company, let’s talk about the book, the weather, bowling, the behavior of bees, how your wife’s cancer is doing and so on.
Yes, perhaps some people will find this odd enough to push on. And maybe in these instances you can’t interact with them. But I bet most don’t even notice. And you can just interact with those who tolerate it.
heck, sometimes you can even share your guess on a subject that rubs up on morals. they objective speak, you speak in I Think and want. But it seems like, in general, you would see no Point in either 1) Calling into question their objectivism - since for all you know this is you being bad and 2) discussing morals in general.
What is the psychology of repeatedly doing something that for all you know is bad and for all you Think is pointless?