I have absolutely no idea how this relates to the point I raise here: The distinction between the either/or world which is true for all of us and our conflicting is/ought reactions [which propel our actual behaviors] to whatever facts can be established.
Same here. As though the issue of abortion [and the conflicting goods embedded in it] among those who practice Eastern philosophies, are not still present. As though the emphisis is not either placed on the so-called “natural right” of the baby to be born or the so-called “political right” of the woman to choose to take its life.
The Buddha himself would not be exempt from acknowledging this. On the other hand, a so-called omniscient and omnipotent God could clearly be seen as the final arbiter.
Here’s the tricky part for me in understanding your point of view:
No, what you are stating here [from my point of view] is only when another comes to accept your own “knowledge database” will they not be “too narrow and shallow”. That is precisely what makes you an objectivist [to me] insofar as the facts able to be established as true for all of us are shown to be applicable to one or another moral/political narrative/agenda.
And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of objectivists out there all claiming that it is their own “knowledge data base” that establishes the whole truth.
No, the critical question [for me] is the extent which you construe the future as one in which conflicting goods are eliminated more or less than that should they still be around rational men and women can come to know how one behaves [necessarily] in the right or the wrong way.
In other words:
Instead, “in the future”…
On the other hand…
Back again to your Capital Letter intellectual contraption obviating God by subsumming absolute objective morality [for now] in your head.
All I am able to do is to suggest [to others] that while your explanation here is deemed adequate to you, it is no where near being adequate to me. In fact, it basically avoids my argument altogether.
Unless of course others here might be willing to point out how in fact it is perfectly adequate. I’m always willing to concede that I might either be misconstruing your point or that your point really is more reasonable than mine.