This is taken from the “Iambiguous and ecmandu - dasein” thread.
The thread was locked.
No, that is your own subjective rendition of my point. My own subjective rendition is more along these lines…
John can grow up under Communism then socialism then capitalism. Based on his own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas/information, this can either have been a good or a bad experience. Jane can grow up under capitalism then socialism then Communism. Based on her unique unique sets of experiences, relationships and access to ideas/information, this can either have been a good or a bad experience.
Now, how do the political philosophers, after taking these existential variables into account – the part about dasein – come to conclude which particular political economy reflects that which all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to embrace?
In other words, when confronted with this historical debate, I have become entangled in this…
If, with respect to capitalism and socialism, I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values here are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, 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. 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.
How then are you not entangled in it?
From my perspective, there is no essential truth here. There are only particular existential points of view rooted politically – historically, culturally, experientially – in conflicting goods.
In these:
economicshelp.org/blog/5002/ … apitalism/
greengarageblog.org/10-biggest-p … -socialism
Obviously, both sides are able to raise points that the other side is not able to just make go away. And both sets of arguments are said to be reasonable given the assumptions/premises that the conclusions are predicated on.
Then what?
Then there are arguments of those who insist that socialists states devolved into dictatorships precisely because the capitalist forces around the globe were hell bent on destroying them. Socialism, they insist, was never really able to get off the ground. The state had to focus instead on preparing for war and with dealing with those inside the motherland who were acting in the interests of the capitalistic imperialists.
So, again, philosophically, what is the one and the only – the optimal – “rational” “ideal” “natural” argument to make here? Is there an “objective truth” to be found? Or, instead, does that come to reflect particular political prejudices revolving around particular economic agendas?
That’s preposterous. Again, my point is only to suggest that “learning and improving” are intertwined in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. It all unfolds out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.
In other words, here you are claiming to have learned this rather than that. Than someone else comes along claiming to have learned that rather than this.
It’s like on the locked thread…
While you seemingly learned that…
People want self-autonomy and self-determination.
The ‘rights’ of the living take precedence over the ‘rights’ of the dead or unborn.
An unwanted child will be more likely to be abused and neglected than a wanted child.
Unsafe, illegal abortions endanger the life of the woman.
No religious woman is forced to have an abortion.
Ecmandu seemingly has learned that…
That’s not quite the argument that works…
People can say the fetus wants self autonomy too…
The main problem (that you touched upon) is that non consensual birth from the mother, positively reinforces non consent in life.
The child WILL grow up in consent violation mentality globally!
And yes, that’s objectively what nobody wants!
And then: what of those on the other side who seem to have learned something entirely at odds from this?
You tell me: Who gets to decide which frame of mind reflects an “improvement” in thinking here?
In other words, demonstrate to me how your own frame of mind here is not just a political prejudice rooted in dasein rooted in one rather than another set of assumptions.
Instead, as a moral nihilist, I propose that the “best of all possible words” is reflected not in either might makes right or right makes might but in democracy and the rule of law.
I merely point out that even here I am no less entangled in my dilemma.
Whereas when you go about the business of “thinking”, you are able to learn from your mistakes because, either through God or through Reason or [somehow] through both, you are able to make the proper distinctions between good and evil. And all of the other objectivists who share this frame of mind about “thinking” but who have come to embrace a conflicting “kingdom of ends” are, well, just plain wrong.
Right?