It seems to me that you understood my point and why i objected. That is all i wanted.
By the way, by broder definition and mindset too, i am also an objectivist but i listen and value others perceptions and even amend my previous perceptions if i ever find any more appropriate new one in others.
And, i am not an exception but there are many other people like me. Forget about philosophy and philosophical forums, my guess is that a good majority of the people follow that practice in the real world in their lives. They use to have a particular POV of any issue but keep altering and amending with more rational newer versions.
Yes, but based on my own experience with moral and political objectivists, you are the rare exception.
And while many do change their mind about right and wrong over the years, they still hold to the belief that there is in fact a clear distinction to be made between moral and immoral behavior. They were simply wrong before but now they are right.
Anyway, can you give us some examples of what you once believed was true objectively…but then changed your mind based on new experiences or sources of information?
And, if you can, aren’t you then acknowledging that this may well happen again?
Me, I hold the particular views that I do now pertaining to the issue at hand – revealing public information about a member in a venue such as this one. But I have no illusions that my views reflect a moral obligation for all rational men and women. And I know that the very next post might contain an argument that nudges me in the other direction.
[b]And [for me] relativism revolves around the assumptions embedded in what I have come to call the “dasein dilemma”. This:
If I am of the opinion that 1] my own moral/political values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective moral/political values “I” can reach [in a world of conflicting goods], then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am acknowledging that I might have – or might just as well have – gone in another direction instead.[/b]
What I am waiting for is an argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate to me why this is not a reasonable way in which to construe the relationship between 1] the manner in which we come to acquire an identity and 2] the manner in which one might approach opposing moral/political agendas in a world of conflicting goods.
Any number of folks have already rationalized this behavior. Perhaps in the name of God [ridding the world of infidels] or perhaps because they have come to conclude that in a world without God fulfilling their own wants and needs is all the justification they need to do anything.
So, where is the philosophical argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate that either of these moral agendas is necessarily irrational?
Do you have one? One that isn’t based on whatever it is you happen to believe [here and now] “in your head” is moral or immoral?
No, obviously, I cannot be trusted. Not with respect to my moral and political value judgments. And, more to the point, [u]I cannot even trust myself[/u].
And for all of the reasons I have expressed above with respect to what I construe to be the dilemma inherent in dasein.
Consider:
Suppose Bob gets a call from Sally asking if he would be willing to drive her to a Planned Parenthood clinic next week. She is scheduled to get an abortion.
He’s pro-choice, so he says that he will.
Well, suppose in the interim, he does have a new experience or he does come into contact with a new argument that convinces him that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
My point is that trust with respect to value judgments will always be problematic because we never really know what might happen to change our minds. Also, that there is no way in which we can be certain objectively which behaviors are necessarily right and wrong. Or, rather, I have not come across a way.
Shit, I still remember the enormous gap between my moral and political value judgments before and after I spent a year as a soldier in Vietnam. Before I was absolutely certain about the morality of many things [and rooted it in God]. After I was just as certain that those things were immoral [and rooted it in Reason].
But at least back then I still believed that there was a way to make an objective distinction.
It seems that your only stability comes from inertia. You heard some arguments and these form your beliefs. If someone comes along with another argument then you will hang on to your previous belief because of inertia. If the argument is strong enough to overcome your inertia, then you will adopt the new belief.
An objectivist would change if a new belief seemed to be closer to some objective truth. A subjectivist changes because of the quality of the argument and not some reference to objective reality. For him, there is no objectively better POV - all are equal.
Trust is at the discretion of the person allocating trust.
The living can’t be trusted to stay the same, but they can be trusted to change in predictable fashions.
One can predict the odds, and go from there.
I think it’s only fair to expect us to act to the best of our knowledge. Ignorance is a fundamental aspect of existence, and it’s only expected we make mistakes - but inaction can just as easily be a mistake.
We’re thrown into an environment where we’re forced to make choices - to place bets, even if it’s the choice to resist making other choices.
We’re all puppets.
It goes way deeper than just to other people.
==
You are something. You are many things.
All these things influence you.
Everything you do is true, but not everything is ideal for you.
To act in a way that harms you - undermines that which you are, your highest priorities - to act this way is not neutral to you. You could act this way, but there’s clear reason why you wouldn’t. It’s not all ‘just as well’ to the bias living organism.
Your body. Your mind. Your environment.
These are - they’re beyond moral and immoral.
They create moral and immoral. They create the interest to differentiate between the two. They’re the source of all questioning.
I do not think that i am an exception. On the contrary, i think a majority of people follow that methodology, may be not in the anonymity on internet forums but certainly in the real world.
A very common example is voting pattern. People keep changing their preferences with time and circumstances for candidates and parties too. Is it not the change of objective judgments by millions of people continuously? And also, do people marry, divorce and marry with other partners again and again? Is that also not another example of changing objective opinion by millions of people on regular basis?
That is true. And, that will always be the difference between objectivist and relativist. A true Objectivist will always keep looking for better alternatives. He will judge those of the benchmark of rationality and logic and will amending himself for the better. And, i do not see anything wrong in it.
On the other hand, a relativist will never able to decide what is wrong or right, thus there is no scope of betterment. I do not see it as a better alternative for objectivism.
There are many. Firstly, i became complete theist from agnostic or soft atheist about 20 years back. But, i cannot give you proof of that to you here. Thus, i am providing something that happened at ILP itself.
And, you can see that i accepted without any hesitation that i was wrong. My ego cannot stop me for to change for the better, if i ever find any.
Yes, that may happen again. So what? What is a big deal in it? I will opt for better alternative again. But, i will not keep judgment pending if i think that i have enough to take a call. Of course, i may be wrong. But, as i am open to challenge and change, my wrong perceptions would be challenged and corrected too with the time. Thus, with every amendment, i will move one step closer to pure objectivity. That is precisely what science does. The science also follows objectivism, not relativism. Otherwise, it would never able to progress.
imb, the the problem comes when someone thinks that no one but he can be right only and stop listening others. That is what stops improvement.
In that case, by definition, you are an objectivist, not relativist. As soon as you form as opinion, you become objectivist by default. It does not matter whether you are open for the change or not.
If you are open to change, you are a good objectivist, otherwise a bad one, but objectivist in either case. I true relativist will never form an opinion, whether temporary or permanent. Relativism simply means no objective opinion can be formed ever.
Yes but the trust is based on the consistent behavior of the other person. You don’t trust someone who does change or could change unpredictably.
The way Iambig was posted makes me question why we should believe that would change in a predictable fashion. I mean if, as he says, there is ‘no clear distinction between moral and immoral’ , then he could easily switch.
That’s not really true, is it? There is a great deal of personal choice and autonomous behavior.
A strong argument is more persuasive than a weak one.
I like to believe that I won’t be swayed by slick talk and that I will always look for the concrete evidence which supports the argument.
That’s what it comes down to : there is some objective reality that the argument is articulating. That is the reason for and basis of morality. There is a difference between moral and immoral.
Yeah, you can be wrong it, but you strive to be right.
I have no stability. Isn’t that the whole point of dasein’s dilemma? I recognize the obvious: that a new experience, relationship, source of informantion etc. might be the catalyst persuading me to change my mind about any particular value judgment. And, that, which ever direction my values go [existentially], there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to persuade me that any one particular value judgment is true objectively. In other words, that one can acquire a deontological ethics.
[u][b]Even Kant recognized the need for God here[/u][/b].
I merely suggest further that this is also true for others. Including you.
And inertia is precisely the source here for most folks. They go about their life from day to day merely assuming that what they have been taught [or taught themselves] about right and wrong [via God or Reason] is what is objectively true. They certainly don’t think about these things in terms of dasein, cvonflicting goods or political economy, right?
Yes, the objectivist might do that. But in so doing she would be acknowledging this:
1] I once thought that X was true objectively…but now I think that Y is.
2] So, perhaps, I will have a new experience, meet new people, come upon new sources of knowledge etc. and believe instead that Z is true objectively.
Instead, many objectivists are able to talk themselves into believing that, no, this time, I really have found the objective moral or political truth.
And, no, a subjectivist does the best she can in weighing as many factors as she can before taking that existentential leap to one side or the other.
Again, you and I have been over this on another thread with respect to abortion. You claimed that your own argument reflected what you construed to be an objective resolution to the conflicting goods I proposed: the right of the unborn to live vs. the right of women not to be forced to give birth.
I approach this quandary precisely from the dilemma embedded in dasein. I took my political leap to feminism. But that meant accepting the fact that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of unborn humn beings would be destroyed every year. But the only alternative is to force thousands upon thousands upon thousands of women to give birth against their will.
How is this dilemma to be resolved objectively, deontologically? What was your own argument? It slips my mind.
