Now, the stage I would liked to have explored with him in our own discussions is how he explains the part of his own “self” here…
He doesn’t believe in God to the best of my knowledge. And an omniscient God would seem able to note definitively whether and/or when mere mortals are permitted or not permitted to step on bugs.
And he doesn’t believe – philosophically? – in objective morality. So there would appear to be no deontological assessment available to him in order to pin down rationally when or whether mere mortals can step on bugs.
Instead, he would rely on the extent to which, in any particular context, he felt “revulsed” when having to choose either to step or not to step on this or these particular bugs “here and now”.
But: My argument is that in many crucial respects even things like “revulsion” are rooted in dasein.
Thus, if someone had followed him around 24/7, year in and year out, noting all of the experiences he had involving bugs, they would come to one [or more] that might explain how and why he feels or does not feel revulsion “here and now” when confronted with these particular bugs in this particular situation.
But: he doesn’t have to access to all of the variables in his life that predisposed him to feel or not to feel “revulsion” here and now. In fact, none of us do. Our memories only go back so far. And there are any number of gaps in our memories. And any number of our memories may be false or distorted.
Right?
So, I’m back again here to the need for an omniscient and omnipotent God. No God and mere mortals are often taking leaps of faith in regard to their reactions to the world around them. Especially in regard to their moral and political values.