Then we are stuck I guess. I don’t believe that I do.
And what scientifically can be communicated to folks from all the different sides of all the different conflicting value judgments such that it would be irrational not to believe it? That is basically my point. To make this distinction. And that seems [to me] to be as close as we can get to what is true objectively.
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.
I believe this only “here and now” though. I don’t know how to explain that any better. And since I believed something other than what I believe now before I can only assume that I might believe something other than what I believe now later.
And my “mocking” style is rooted more in my online persona. I am a polemicist. I have always enjoyed dueling with others in places like this – using words as swords. Being provocative can often bring out the best arguments in others.
But, sure, who really knows what – subconsciously, unconsciuously – motivates me in turn. The subjunctive frame of mind is always beyond our grasping fully. Or mine always has been.
…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, you 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.
Yes, there is always that option. You can begin with the assumption that morality revolves solely around whatever it is that makes you feel good. You weigh the pros and the cons in regard to possible consequences and then you do whatever it is you think you can get away with.
But whatever it is you think makes you feel good is still rooted largely in dasein. And that approach to life as “good” is certainly going to come into conflict with others if what you perceive to be good for you is perceived to be bad for them.
Then it becomes either a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, might makes right world or you agree to moderate your behaviors through negotiation and compromise. Through democracy, for example. And [always] within the context of political economy – taking into account the role that wealth and power will always play here.
My point is only this: that there does not seem to be an option whereby folks are able to determine [rationally, logically] what is fact the only truly objective moral truth to be had.
And this is what I believe others do not want to believe about themselves. They want some sort of objective moral and political Truth they can attach “I” to. Thus objectivism [to me] becomes more and more embodied in human psychology.
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.
Sure, any particular objectivist doctrine may well in fact be the best of all possible worlds. But those who espouse them still have to present me with an argument that counters the points I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
After all, there are hundreds and hundreds of dogmas out there, right? Why should we believe that one rather than another is the true font for enlightenment? And yet the reasoning given by these folks seems to reflect more than just a flip of the coin to decide which way to go. But that’s what we do. From a particular subjective point of view we take our existential leaps along the moral and political continuum.
…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.
This makes sense [to me] only if you literally choose to live apart from all others. Then you don’t have to concern yourself with questions of “morality” at all. But as soon as others enter the picture there is the possibility of conflict. What choice then is there? You have to make an existential leap to one set of rules rather than another. It then comes down to the extent to which someone begins to argue that you should abandon moderation, negotiation and compromise and instead embrace a set of behaviours predicated [allegedly] on some religious or secular Truth.
The alleged objective truth. Again, always theirs.