My philosophy is based on the assumption that in a No God world, Graham was predisposed to behave as he did based largely on an accumulation of a particular set of experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge.
Others however are embedded existentially in an entirely different set of variables. So they react to Graham taping women talking about sex in entirely different ways.
Now, sure, its possible that the problem here is entirely me. Arguments made by the Platonists, the Kantians and all the other philosohers who have grappled with how mere mortals ought to behave in the world, may have succeeded in pinning this all down “deontologically”, “essentially”, “objectively”. With or without God.
But I won’t admit it. Or I am unable to admit it because I am unable to grasp it.
Yeah, you’ve got me there. I’ll always admit to the possibility of that.
But let’s hear these arguments. All of us can then judge for ourselves the extent to which Graham either ought or ought not to have made those tapes.
Their methodology will either succeed in demonstrating this or it won’t. In much the same manner it can be demonstrated that in fact Graham either did or did not make the videos themselves.
In other words, in the either/or world, we are often able to demonstrate that this happened rather than that. So, why, after thousands of years, are philosophers still no where near to being able to pin down any number of human behaviors as either moral or immoral?
I’ve got my reasons. But they are no less conjectures based on a particular set of assumptions.
Communities will reward or punish particular behaviors. And in communities that revolve around one or another objectivist font [religion: Christianity/Islam etc.; ideology: Communism/fascism etc.] the behaviors that you choose carry consequences.
Why one set of behaviors rather than another? And if it is seen as reasonable that morality is largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein then it might seem more reasonable [to some of us] that “moderation, negotiation and compromise” reflects the best of all posible governing agendas.
That sounds like moderation is objectively good, negotiation is objectively good, and compromise is objectively good.
But you can’t mean that because it contradicts your moral nihilism.
They are construed by me to be good only because I have not come upon an argument of late that persuades me that an essential/objective good does in fact exist. It always revolves around what I think I know about human morality in a No God world. Here and now.
However: Convince me that what I think I know should instead be what you think you know; and I’m sure I’ll feel less fractured and fragmented than I am now.
All you are basically arguing here [from my frame of mind] is that this is bullshit. I am determined to reject all arguments from others that do not align themselves with my own set of assumptions. And even though my own frame of mind here does leave me fractured and fragmented [with little or no comfort and consolation and oblivion right around the corner] it’s all about me and my own psychological bent here.
It’s all about me and my willful obstinance. My need to defend moral nihilism even if it does make me feel broken, beaten and battered.
No compromise … no negotiation … extreme/violent opposition to fascism, communism, Christianity or Islam are just as reasonable for a moral nihilist. And reasonable in a world based on dasein.
So why aren’t you saying that??
All I can do is to come back to this:
1] Here and now someone thinks they know that some particular behavior is rational/virtuous “inside their head”
2] Here and now someone thinks they know that this is not just based on the components of my own argument above
3] Here and now someone feels confident instead they can demonstrate why all rational/virtuous men and women ought to think the same
About Communism or abortion or any other set of conflicting goods.
Then around and around and around we’ll go.
But: this is something that I would expect to be the case in a No God world. In other words, given the manner in which I construe the actual existential interaction of the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism.
Out in a particular context, out in a particular world.