The realization for me is the manner in which I construe the relationship bewteen dasein and conflicting goods. However, for many who do not look at their own value judgments from that perspective, it becomes necessary to concoct an explanation that serves to keep their ego more or less intact. Rationalization is, after all, a psychological defense mechanism. You can still insist there is an objective right and wrong – it simply took you longer to finally pin it down. And a lot of this of course unfolds on the subconscious level.
But we are still convinced that what we do think [here and now] corresponds to the most rational and ethical manner in which to think about it.
True. At one time, I did not “see” capital punishment. Some would say if you’re pro-life you cannot believe in capital punishment. But I accept both and there is no contradiction there for me. At one time there was. Our views do change because we see further and we begin to see more. It is just what it is.
I was once a supporter of the death penalty. But then some years ago, DNA testing had advanced to the point that every other week it seemed a new prisoner on death row had been found to be innocent. That really jolted my frame of mind.
But, still, my basic point today remains the same: That how we feel about an issue like capital punishment is going to reflect all of the existential variables in our life that predispose us to go in a particular direction. And that there is no one direction that is necessarily/objectively more rational or ethical than any other. Both sides will always seem to have points that the other side’s points don’t make go away. Just watch a film like Dead Man Walking to see how existentially wrenching these things can be.
Yes. I am not able to imagine an argument [here and now] that would allow me to extricate myself from either dasein or conflicting goods. Such an argument may in fact exist. But that is for all practical purposes irrelevant if I am not able to come across it.
Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.
Every time I turn on the news I am confronted with folks embracing opposite ends of one or another moral divide. And, as I came to succumb more and more to reasoning embedded in my “dasein dilemma”, I came to see how each side was able to rationalize their point of view simply by making certain assumptions about what is true. Thus regarding the death penality one side makes the assumption that a man who takes the life of another forfeits his own right to live. He caused them to suffer, now it is his turn. But then the other side points out that when you execute the man you cause suffering for his family and friends, for his loved ones. And then they cite can factors like race and class and [again] the possibility the man was wrongfully accused.
The same with all the other moral conflicts.
At the same time, at some point I have to take that giant leap and decide for myself what can be seen as objective – since for many others, it is seen in the same way. For instance – doing no deliberate harm to a child – can be logically and reasonably seen as an objective ethical value for one who is naturally sane.
But what of those who argue that, in a Godless universe [an assumption they make], morality revolves solely around that which brings the individual pleasure, satisfaction, fullfillment? Or what of those who rationalize any number of behaviors that you may deem to be immoral [even heinous] in the name of one or another God? or in the name of one or another political ideology?
I am still looking for a philosophical argument able to demonstrate that those who do such things are necessarily/objectively irrational/immoral. Again, this is one of the crucial reasons why folks invent Gods and Ideologies: to acquire a so-called transcendental truth that trumps dasein.
And I don’t see my “dasein dilemma” as something that allows me to “thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability”. Trust me: If you thought about or understood these relationships as I do, you would not find the experience all that pleasant at all. Bur it basically comes down to the extent to which I can make others undertand this part:
Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. [u]At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.[/u]
This is either something you come to grasp intuitively or you don’t. And once it becomes embedded in the subjunctive self, it is anything but enjoyable.