My point though is always to make that crucial distinction between what he believes here "in his head" to be true and what he can actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe "in their heads" in turn.
I may be wrong here but is there actually much of a distinction there when what it appears to come down to is simply "belief" ~~ does it matter who is doing the believing? Of course, we do have to look "to the source.
I may not be understanding your statement though.
We also do this by trying to learn about who we are, exploring our selves individually and our psyches, what makes us "tick" , what our relationships to others consist of and how we relate to others.
Yes, but to what extent is the philosopher then able to transcend the parts rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, in order to arrive at a frame of mind said to reflect the optimal or the only rational understanding of human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. And that is the part I zero in on.
That would necessarily depend on the individual philosopher and on his desire to think objectively as much as possible and not simply subjectively - according to how he himself alone views things.
By attempting to think in a more logical as opposed to a more emotional way when examining all issues thoroughly.
Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow said:“Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. It is wise to take admissions of uncertainty seriously, but declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.”
He also said:“Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.
By being more aware of our biases and how they reflect our thinking and trying to transcend them or plow through them.
With respect to issues like abortion there are any number of questions in which there clearly are answers. And the answers are apllicable to all of us. Again, the world of either/or.
What criteria is used to form an objective viewpoint on these so-called answers?
For instance, insofar as a particular abortion issue goes, what particular answer would apply to all?
Arcturus Descending wrote: It's all a process. We turn on the light by discussion. How can one size fit all when we all come from different "places" but don't we get closer to the truth when we begin to see shared ethical and moral values, and when we're able to see the validity and right reason when it comes to some ethical and moral decisions - for instance the abortion issue? When it comes to human beings, can there actually be one absolute truth or can there only be a meeting of the minds, mutual agreement on what is considered to be valid and just reasonable?
Iam wrote; But when we actually bring speculation like this down to earth and assess its applicibility/relevance to an issue like abortion, we soon bump into all of the conflicting renditions of what it means to "turn on the light", to get "closer to the truth", to share "valid and right reasons".
Why is this? Because when it comes down to life and death and quality of life issues which are close to the heart, we all tend to subjectify things according to our life experiences maybe?
Carl Jung once said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that life gives us problems and it is up to us to find solutions to them.
Can there actually be solutions to some things? Sometimes life is so messy. Where do we start? That's a subjective reaction. lol
That's why I always advocate democracy and the rule of law [moderation, negotiation, comnpromise] over might makes right or right makes might. But that doesn't make this...
I agree with the above. "Might makes right" is simply based on ego and arrogance and a lack of clear thinking ~ at least to me and "right makes might" is not necessarily true either unless one honestly has the courage of his/her convictions and the will and courage to make things happen.
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and
But is that necessarily a negative thing to keep in mind? Being aware of that may help us transcend subjectivity long enough to focus "outside of ourselves" in a manner of speaking.
that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap,
I wonder just how many we can say there are? If I say that our natural resources are precious and that if we misuse them, we will not have them for long, there will still be others who will turn around and say "so what" - what's the big deal".
If I say, with Carl Jung, that truth is based on the concert of "many voices", than how does that pertain to Nazi Germany, which could, in my eyes, readily refute that saying?
I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction.
Well, then, you might have to ask yourself why it was that you determined to go in this direction and not that? After reflecting on that, you might come to realize that at the time it was the best and only way for you to go. Then you detach from the thought.
Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Within reason, we have to have the courage of our convictions and why we did this and not that - unless we eventually come to see that there might have been a better way. After all, we are not perfect and we do not think perfectly and in such a complete, thorough way but we strive to as we go along.
... So I come to places like ILP in order to explore the narratives of those who profess not to be entangled in it.
Have you come to any conclusion about WHY they are not entangled in it?
Arcturus Descending: I'm not sure I grasp what you're saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more and/or give me an example? Your statement kind of raises a red flag for me but since I'm not really sure what you're speaking about, I'll wait for you to explain.
Iam: It should raise a red flag! It basically revolves around the assumption that in a Godless universe human behaviors are "beyond good and evil".
But we have evolved into consciousness and conscience. What rational humane being would think that way? It sounds like more of an excuse to me.
Even without a god, there can be a moral and ethical way of behavior even if it may have in part arisen from the instinct for humanity to survive.
Wasn't morality and an ethical way of living already infused in people before the concept of a god or a personal god appeared on Earth?
There are atheists who have more of a positive code of living than that of many christians.
Or, as someone once suggested, that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Why? Because all things can be rationalized.
That wouldn't be conducive to our survival. It's a thought not well thought out by barbarians. lol
What might seem "satisfactory" to me here and now is no less a particular frame of mind entangled existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Most folks however manage to convince themselves that when they feel that their own behaviors are "satisfactory" they are "for all practical purposes" close enough to having done the "right thing".
So, what would YOU
yourself use as a yardstick to determine that what you have done is necessarily satisfactory and the "right thing" to have done?
Don't you think that at some point one has to have confidence or trust that what they have done or what they do was/is rooted in and came from the most positive part of them which also seeks no harm? We can live in a degree of uncertainly since we cannot see a whole picture (which is why we use cognitive thinking) without becoming scrupulous - which would only tend to make us paralyzed or frozen, psychically speaking.
Yes, but folks all along the political spectrum come to different -- conflicting -- conclusions regarding the part where the bell goes off. And the part where they find the right path.
Then what? Again, the option [as I see it] is generally a very, very complex intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy.
Perhaps it does all come down to how perception reveals brain differences or how the brain influences individual perception, notwithstanding how we choose to hold to the same patterns which we have developed.https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nt-jan-11/
Arcturus Descending: By ought, do you mean what is necessary to do, what you must do, what you see fit to do?
IaM: Ought to because it is the right [moral, ethical] thing to do.
So, how do we move away from that "ought" when it may be
sullied by bias and simply personal opinion since it is not necessarily based on actual truth but on subjective thinking and personal preference ~~ which may be faulty?
Once you have managed to convince yourself of a particular end [it's the right thing to do] then you just calulate what you ought to do in order to achieve it. That then precipitates titantic arguments about which particular ends justify which particular means. But at least most are certain of the ends involved.
That's just not an option for me. Well, not "here and now".
I may be wrong here since I don't really know you but you seem to thrive in ambiguity and uncertainty
...like I love the mystery of the unknown and unrevealed and the uncertain, and see beauty in it, you would appear to love the unending unanswered ad continuum questions without answers. Maybe one of the reasons I love this kind of art.
Insofar as the stock market scenario goes, I don't necessarily believe that those "oughts" are so different. They are just the opposites sides of the same coin and are based on personal preferences stemming from belief and so-called necessity issuing from unconscious fear at times. This probably goes back to the brain/perception concept.
But it really comes down to the distinction that I always make between that which we believe to be true [or claim to know as true] "in our heads" and that which we are able in turn to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe.
As far as the stock market scenario goes, mr. reasonable at some point might come to change his "ought" thinking insofar as it was not so wise an endeavor or way of thinking but I'm probably wrong there. I would say that mr. has a gambler's spirit. We're all gamblers in some ways or other ways but we pick and choose those ways - some are safer than others and with some, we are robbed of our personal freedoms.
The same goes for the ones opposed to playing the stock market. One cannot fully know the effect of either decision on the economy.
Okay, I'm rambling...
Iam wrote: Take capital punishment.
But suppose you believe that capital punishment is wrong. That it is immoral and not reflective of a civilized people.
How would you go about demonstrating that all rational human beings are obligated to believe that it's true?
No rational human being is obligated to believe
that a particular thing IS true but we are obligated to search out what, in actuality, IS objectively true under different circumstances and what would cause the least amount of harm.
Let us suppose that capital punishment is, under certain circumstances, the only reasonable, just, intelligent way to go. How to prove that?
Show the crime photos of the poor child who was raped and then murdered by the predator. Who in their right mind would not opt for capital punishment under those circumstances?
Civilized people are not necessarily sentimental, indulging in empathy and compassion toward those who do not deserve it, when what is necessary is to protect the children and society from predators and psychopaths.
Of course, the only terrible fly in the ointment so to speak would be if an innocent man were to die. But when we know beyond the shadow of a doubt and not just based on some circumstantial evidence that he/she committed a heinous crime - that head has to roll, in a matter of speaking.
What do YOU mean here by "brought down to earth"?
That, with respect to the relationship between personal identity, value judgments and political power, any analysis accummulated by those who probe ethics philosophically must be integrated existentially into the world that we live in -- a world in which conflicts over the relationship between "I" and "evil" and "politics" are everywhere.
Ah, such a difficult task to meet. That is where ambiguity will always "live on" in a sense.
I realize that what I said above about the heinous crimes of predators deserving capital punishment may sound absolutist and it was. But I also do realize that there are extenuating circumstances ~ like insanity and/or other deeply disturbing mental illness issues that need to be brought into account. For me, a predator who loves and lives for what he does does deserve capital punishment though some would say that that itself is a sign of insanity.
But then again - what do we do with cancer cells? “I do not rest on the broad upland of a system that includes a series of sure statements about the absolutes, but on a narrow, rocky ridge between the gulfs where there is no sureness of expressible knowledge but [only] the certainty of meeting what remains, undisclosed.”
― Martin Buber
Arcturus Descending wrote: I watched a movie the other night which brought home the question to me: "How ought I (or one) to live? It's called Never Let Me Go. It was about children who were created to be genetically-engineered organ donors to serve their Originals, the ones which they were "cloned" after. It reminded me of nazi Germany.
Iam wrote; And, yes, most of us will react to it disapprovingly. Just as most of us will react to Nazi Germany disapprovingly. I know that I do. But I also have no illusions that this reaction is anything other than an existential contraption. There are, after all, many, many others who would not react disapprovingly at all.
Disapprovingly is putting it mildly, Iam.
I wonder about the kind of people who would not react disapprovingly. Would they be the people for whom "anything goes", people who exercise a complete and personal laissez faire attitude? People for whom other children have no deep value or right to happiness? People who have no code at all that they live by?
How could anyone not be enraged over children being brought into this world simply to be slaves, to have their organs harvested and sold until finally their bodies just give way and die. That attitude in itself is a nazi attitude, is it not?
When we've reached the point that something like this becomes blase and normal to us, that's when humanity ought to just pack it in because then we have become far far far less than human.
Director Mark Romanek has said that, as in the film, everyone has to uncover their relationship to our own mortality; we have two options: either go against it, or try to figure out a way around it
...or live and let live.
Keira Knightley feels that the film's story is alarming, but has said that the film is "more about humanity's ability to look the other way". "You know in fact that if your morals can go out the window if you think you can survive in a certain way, whatever your morals may be".
A very good and tragic example of the above is a play called "Good". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(play
)Good is a play about the causes rather than the consequences of Nazism, about morality and seduction. It explores how a "good" man gets caught up in the intricate web of personal and social reasons why the average person might be seduced in to what we see as abhorrent. The author thus rejects the view that the Nazi atrocities are explained as a result of the simple conspiracy of criminals and psychopaths. Further the lesson of Nazism and the play are not just about the revulsion of six million dead but a warning about popular movements that lead to holocausts. Not judgmental of its protagonist, Good invites to question just what a "good" man is and does and where the bounds of responsibility lie.
How dangerous it can be when we are not aware of how easy it can be to morally detach ourselves from things if we are not vigilant to our flaws and laziness ~~ how easy it is to become something other than what we "think" we are. Why?
Why indeed ~~ when we are nothing but Good!
Thus how would the philosophers go about constructing an argument able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to react to either context in The Right Way?
First, I would let go of the word "virtuous". lol Then the phrase "The Right Way" would have to be defined or redefined.
My own reaction to "codes of behavior" is, first of all, to note all of the different renditions that have appeared over the centuries. And then to note that "serious philosophers" have yet to actually sink their analytic assessments into these conflicting and contradictory rituals, customs, folkways, mores, laws etc., in order to yank out a frame of mind that is able to be demonstrated as the optimal point of view.
Do you mean to say that they have not actually barely touched the surface?
I have an intuition that I would not make a very good philosopher of ethics since I am not much of a detached person in some ways. My personal biases might so enter in. lol