Making iambiguous's day

You seem to suggest that the bystanders OUGHT to stop the sociopath. But moral nihilism says that there is nothing wrong with the actions of the sociopath. The concepts of right and wrong don’t even apply.
There will be a resolution to the problem . If the bystanders win and they are able to stop him, then it merely demonstrates their might. If he wins, then he is mighty. In that case, he will be happy and the bystanders will be unhappy. Nothing wrong with that result.

For a subjectivist, there is a desired resolution but that’s just a personal preference. There is a moral attitude but that’s just a personal preference.
The sociopath also has personal preferences.

What about a moral objectivist?
(Let’s say, for argument, that the sociopath is a killer.)
The objectivist has come to the conclusion that “Life is good and therefore it should be preserved.” He does not need God to come to such a conclusion. It is easily the product of observation and logical thought within a godless universe.
It becomes his guiding principle. This principle applies to all people and that it is not simply his opinion or personal preference.

Based on that principle, the actions of the sociopath are wrong and he ought to be stopped. The morality of the sociopath is wrong.
If the sociopath wins, then it is an undesirable and unfortunate result. It is a bad result. You know … objectively. :wink:

Can it be demonstrated that the principle of the objectivist is correct? I think so but apparently there is no convincing demonstration for the moral nihilist. :confusion-shrug:

(Sorry for the interruption. I couldn’t help myself.

Carry on. ) :smiley:

No, I’m saying that one can use bystanders as a means of protecting one’s self from the sociopath if one persuades them. He can even persuade them that they ought to protect him but this would be more of a psychological effect than the truth (at least for the moral nihilist).

True, but the scenario Biggy seems fond of putting people into is one that presses them to answer: what would you do? I know the sociopath would want to kill me (and all bystanders if he can), but that’s what he would do. I myself would do everything I can to prevent that.

Right, but what I always question is: why go with the sociopath’s preference when you already have your own?

Yes, that’s probably how a moral objectivist would see it.

Yes.

Right, because he recognizes everything as a existential contraption/fabrication. ← For me, though, it doesn’t follow from this that existential contraptions/fabrications are unreal–it just means they are invented (if I baked a cake, would you say it’s not real because I invented it?).

Remove yourself and your self-interest and self-preservation from the scenario. The sociopath is attacking a woman who you don’t know. Ought the bystanders stop him? Why or why not? Is anyone wrong or right?

Again, the more important question is what to think and do if you have no personal stake.

And sure, one can argue that as a member of society, you always have a personal stake in the outcome of these conflicts. You don’t want sociopaths roaming around and potentially killing someone who you do care about in the future.

Why not go with the sociopath’s preference?

One needs to answer ‘which way to go’ when you construct a moral code and use it as the basis for the laws of a society. And one needs to give reasons for the answer.

That’s a challenging line of questions. I have no simple answer, but I do have a complex one (bear with me). My gut tells me the bystanders ought to help the woman. But this gut feeling is rooted in the actual me in the real world, not some absent me in the imaginary scenario whom we agreed would be removed. My feelings, thoughts, values, etc. still get projected into the imaginary scenario we’re toying with, but they get projected therein as facts and actual states of affairs in that scenario. If my gut, here in the real world, tells me the bystanders in the scenario ought to help the woman, then that becomes a moral fact in the scenario untied to any “me” that would have been there if we didn’t remove him.

Furthermore, I realize this gut feeling isn’t grounded on any rationalization and isn’t an objective fact in itself–it’s just a feeling–and it may waiver–I may feel differently tomorrow. You could probably convince me quite easily that it is baseless, but insofar as this feelings
reasserts itself as a natural impulse produced by my brain, whatever argument you use to convince me will have to suppress that gut feeling, and when I relax my focus on your argument, the gut feeling reasserts itself.

My view is that whatever mental state or experience or thought asserts itself like this–ex nihilo as it were–it counts, not as baseless but as fundamental. If my gut feeling is that the bystanders ought to help the woman, and if I just find that feeling there in my mind, sustaining itself, asserting itself, then it’s just a fundamental/irreducible part of my subjective reality.

Well, obviously, if I don’t have any personal stakes involved, nothing would matter to me as to what should happen. The sociopath could kill me and I would be all right with that.

But this is a different scenario than what Biggy usually pushes people into. When I get put into this context in one of Biggy’s hypothetical scenarios, I assume it’s the usual me who has a stake involve in his own life.

Because I have a preference of my own. I’m not arguing that my preference ought to take precedence over the sociopath’s but that, just being there, my preference is what’s going to drive me. It would be very odd if I chose to fight against my preference in favor of the sociopath’s, particularly if I had no opinion on what ought to happen morally speaking.

This is true for a moral code that one wishes to convince a whole community/society about, but I’m not so sure it’s needed for a legal syste. I can imagine a whole society of moral nihilist. I think they too would agree that a legal system that bound all citizens under it would be very desirable indeed. No one, not even moral nihilists, want chaos and anarchy ruling society (well, unless you’re Joker), so I would predict they would resurrect a legal system just for practical purposes or because it is their preference.

Morality does not come from without, fuckers.

That’s what moral objectivism is, the belief that morality comes from without.

Mr. Bigger is only superficially against objectivism. In reality, he himself is an objectivist. This is apparent from the fact that he is looking for morality in the external. That’s the reason he is disappointed: because he cannot find any.

The retard does not consider himself to be an objectivist merely because he is not enforcing any kind of morality onto others.

There is no almighty God with a beard that can tell you what is right and what is wrong.

There is neither Holy Book written by some prophet that can tell you what is right and what is wrong.

There are no scientific laws that can tell you what is right and what is wrong (contrary to what that Jew named Sam Harris wants you to believe.)

There is no Being that you can communicate with through meditation that can tell you what is right and what is wrong (contrary to what Easterners and New Age druggies want you to believe, among them Schopenhauer and more recently David Myatt in his plagiarized version of Schopenhauer’s “On the Basis of Morality” that he calls “The Numinous Way”.)

There are no self-proclaimed authorities that can create morality using imagination and then make it true by enforcing it onto everyone else.

Morality comes from within.

That does not mean that morality is a product of imagination (the position of, I suppose, solipsism.)

That does not mean that morality is a product of meditation (the position of mysticism.)

It might sound strange, but solipsists and mystics do not really derive their morality from within.

Morality that comes from within is only that morality that is a product of biological fusion (= centripetal, form-giving, will-based, concentrative motion.)

Morality that comes from without is only that morality that is a product of biological fission (= centrifugal, form-diluting, instinct-based, decentrative motion.)

My position, which is true position, is neither that of moral objectivism (the belief that morality comes from without) nor that of moral subjectivism (the belief that morality is a product of meditation, or in other cases, that morality is whatever you feel it is or whatever you want it to be.)

Both moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are fundamentally objectivist positions because they seek morality in the EXTERNAL even though that is less evident in the case of moral subjectivism.

That’s it.

Mr. Bigger is simply an idiot who is stuck in his own fantasy land made out of nothing other than words.

How does that work in a specific case. For example, moral rules against stealing are common. If morality comes from within then how does a rule which forbids stealing develop? Not everybody thinks that stealing is bad since there is a general human desire to get something for nothing.

A moral nihilist like Iambig would say that the gut feeling is there because of your experiences … your indoctrination, the society where you grew up, etc. If you grew up in a different society, you would not necessarily have it.
An objectivist would say that the gut feeling is innate for a human. It’s something that all normal reasonable people feel at least to some degree. The reasons given for its presence will depend on the source of the objectivist’s principles - maybe it’s evolutionary instinct, maybe it’s a divine gift, etc.

One day you will die and human society will move on without you. Wouldn’t you say that society ought to be this way or that way.

I don’t think so. His abortion example involves John and Mary. Iambig is not the father of the aborted fetus.

But which set of laws does a society of moral nihilists select to implement and why?
If the ‘psychopath lobby’ comes forth and suggests that it be legal for a person to rape and kill 6 women or children per year. Why not make it law?
(It seems perfectly reasonable and in the spirit of negotiation and compromise that Iambig promotes. :evilfun: )
The objectivist has a reason as to why it is not acceptable. The nihilist does not.

Yes, but that’s a causal account–what caused it to be there–which is different from what the feeling is telling me.

I probably would have an opinion on the matter, yes–but I have those opinions while I’m alive–I’m always projecting those opinions/feelings onto the imaginary scenarios we entertain. If I say to you: society, after I die, should be thus–the source of that is my sentiments and opinions here and now (while I’m alive). It can’t be the sentiments and opinions of my dead self in the scenario.

That’s true, but I was thinking of the cases in which he does put the question towards a particular person: what would you do?

But still, if he’s asking: who’s right, John or Mary? Again, he’s addressing you. Thus any answer you give must stem from you and your sentiments and opinions. You project those sentiments and opinions into the imaginary scenario, and once projected, they become fundamental/irreducible truths inside the scenario. The objectivist is simple he who doesn’t trace these so-called truths back to his sentiments and opinions.

Which ever ones the largest, most cohesive and dominant group decides on. It wouldn’t be much different from most Western democratic countries around the world.

Because that probably wouldn’t be the preference of the majority of people.

Not a moral reason, but he still has his preference. He can simply say “I don’t feel like it.”

And why is it not their preference?
Because they are biologically wired to think that way. That’s the objectivist’s point.

To which the moral nihilist responds : they have only been taught by society (brainwashed?) to think that way.

The objectivist can point to scientific studies and animal behavior but apparently those are not convincing enough to demonstrate that it is biology which is producing these moral rules.

There you are at the impasse.

What interest me here is always the extent to which anyone is able to demonstrate that what they think is true is in fact true for all rational men and women. If I think that Mary had an abortion, is this in fact true? Is this able to demonstrated?

It either is or it is not.

In other words, the parts where my dilemma above is not applicable. Nor is dasein. The fact of Mary’s abortion is not dependent on my own personal experiences, nor on my own subjective opinions, nor on my own political prejudices.

But with respect to the morality of it, how can it not be?

When my values come into conflict with others, I recognize this:

1] that I acquired these values existentially through the particular life that I had lived. They are basically just subjective/subjunctive “leaps” to a set of political prejudices. There does not appear to be a way in which to acquire moral and political ideals. At least not philosophically: re Plato, Aristotle, Kant and others.

2] that my values come to be attached contextually to a particular rendition of “the good”; but no more or less so than the values of those I am in conflict with.

3] that in human social, political and economic interaction, what ultimately counts is who is finally able to enforce a particular set of behaviors

Then of others I ask: Okay, how is this either the same or not the same for you?

Down here on the ground though and not up on the skyhooks.

I mean one way or another you have to connect the dots between “my consciousness” and “my behavior”.

All I can do is to live with the consequences of what I believe is true “in my head” here. “I” becomes hopelessly fragmented. “I” makes that existential leap to a particular set of political prejudices. All the while knowing that a new experience or a new relationship or a new source of information/knowledge might prompt me to change my mind. But, in turn, speculating that nothing is ever really resolved in the manner in which the moral objectivists are able to convince themselves that their own values are in sync – naturally – with the way the world [reality] is alleged to be.

My main contention is that the objectivist frame of mind is more a psychological contraption [a defense mechanism] than a philosophical argument.

In other words, rooted in one or another rendition of this:

[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

[/i][/b]

No, not really. I’m still largely at a loss in understanding how “for all practical purposes” your understanding of consciousness [embedded in prong #1] has any “use value” or “exchange value” out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict.

To wit:

This seems to be another rendition of my own “moderation, negotiation and compromise” — rooted in democracy and the rule of law. But: none of what I describe above relating to the existential consequences of my dilemma goes away. At least not for me.

Yes, but only pertaining to choosing sides morally and politically. Thus the preponderance of “who I am” is in fact rooted substantially, objectively, empirically, substantively etc., out in the world around me.

I see it less as the self destructing and more as recognizing the extent to which the self here is always situated out in a particular world that has shaped and molded it over the years. And, however “vacuous” this may appear to be, if you do choose to interact with others, you have to deal with it “for all practical purposes”.

It is applicable to everyone. Well, if in fact it is. And, admittedly, I have no capacity to demonstrate that it is. Merely that, here and now, it seems reasonable to me that it is.

And, if it is a rational manner in which to understand the “self” out in the world with others, then it suggests in turn that “moderation, negotiation and compromise” is the optimal manner in which to react to conflicting value judgments. That, in other words, moral and political objectivism [rooted in either God or a dogmatic political ideology] can precipitate one or another rendition of an authoritarian autocracy.

The “one of us” mentality.

Yes. It can be construed as a persuasive argument. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in a godless universe. Which is to suggest that philosophers are unable to demonstrate that it is instead necessarily irrational.

The sociopath is happy if he or she is able to gratify a perceived want or need. But this “resolution” may result in the unhappiness of others. My point is only that neither side seems able to demonstrate an objective manner in which to think about this.

We’re still basically “stuck”. Again, I read this and am unable to connect any dots between the points that you make and the manner in which I react myself to others who confront my own moral and political prejudices.

In other words, not much in the way of a more “solid understanding” comes to me.

My point though is that more often than not we will be able to understand another’s point of view – at least to the extent that it can be demonstrated to in fact be in sync with the world around us objectively.

Also, I don’t argue that one or another objectivist will never succeed in convincing others that her frame of mind is the most rational. I only note that no one has [of yet] been able to convince me of it.

There is nothing essentially wrong with the actions of the sociopath if the sociopath starts with the assumption that in a godless universe self-gratification is the moral font of choice.

How then does the moral objectivist demonstrate that in fact this is not so?

The “concept” of right and wrong? But my point is that from the perspective of the sociopath what matters far, far more is the actual fact of his or her self-gratification.

Sans God, how could it be otherwise? In the context of, for example, the global economy isn’t that basically how it works? A tiny percentage of the world’s population now owns the overwhelming preponderance of the world’s wealth. And that results in literally hundreds of millions of very, very unhappy people.

So, are the morally fit obligated to change that? But, if so: How would that be demonstrated as more than just an argument bursting at the seams with assumptions?

Arguments like this for example:

See if you can spot the assumptions.

Every argument that the objectivist makes is apparently loaded with assumptions. :wink:

Can you spot them?

The only reason I entered this thread was that there seemed to be some potential for making progress by looking at the nihilist, subjectivist and objectivist attitudes and actions towards the sociopath who is attacking a woman. Similarities and differences would possibly be revealed.

But once again, Iambig comes in and dismisses most of it as assumptions and he asks questions instead of presenting an argument.

:confusion-shrug:

Indeed. Just as many arguments made by the subjectivists are loaded with them.

The point then always comes down to the extent to which we are able to demonstrate that what we believe is true about these relationships is something that all reasonable men and women are in turn obligated to believe.

Now, the assumption I make here is this: that the assumption the sociopath makes is that if there is no God there is no omniscient and omnipotent point of view. And, then, assuming further, that there is no frame of mind able to know everything that the sociopath does. And, in turn, no entity able to punish him if he choses to behave in a manner deemed “wrong” by this God who knows everything.

Instead, he assumes that there is no God. He assumes that his own pleasure should be the default.

Now, what is the argument the objectivist makes able to demonstrate that these assumptions are all necessarily wrong.

What argument does he propose to put in its place?

And how does he demonstrate out in the world of conflicting goods, the actual moral obligation of the rational/righteous man or woman?

This thread is loaded with the assumptions that I make regarding my dilemma in the face of conflicting goods. And with the assumptions that I make regarding the manner in which I construe these conflicts from the perspective of dasein.

How then are the points that I raise not components of an argument?

How, instead, are the points that you raise more reflective of a “real philosophical argument”?

And over and again I make it clear that what most interests me is not whatever a proper argument may or may not be here, but the extent to which the points raised in the argument are able to be demonstrated “out in the world” of human interaction.

And, in particular, when they come into conflict over value judgments.

What about these objectivist observations (or is it assumptions?? :-k ):

  • The purpose of morality is to facilitate the life of humans together in a community. It’s not about what one particular individual wants to do.

  • There is a cost-benefit analysis when selecting any moral rule.

  • Nobody in the group is going to get everything that he wants. He won’t be able to everything/anything. Some things will be restricted.

So when we consider the self-gratification needs of a sociopath at the expense of a woman/child, then we see that it does not carry much weight.

As a general description of human interaction this is easy enough to propose. Until one gets down to earth and this “moral philosophy” comes toe to toe with an issue like abortion. Does sanctioning abortion “facilitate the life of humans together in a community” more or less than sanctioning the right of the unborn to be brought into the world?

How are we not back again to William Barrett’s “rival goods”?

And is there or is there not a rendition of this pertaining to all moral and political conflagrations?

How do we get around the assumptions that are made from folks in both camps? Or around the assumption that is made by the sociopath?

Encompass this in what you construe to be a “real philosophical argument”.

True. But are there or are there not conflicting narratives [liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, Christian vs. Islamic etc.] when these things are finally “calculated” out in the world of actual human interactions?

It carries considerable weight for the sociopath. And he has in fact calculated that his own gratification is the default here; and that sans God his chief concern is in not getting caught by those who don’t share his own frame of mind.

So, what do you do…grab him by the collar and start screaming, “that’s just wrong, fellow!!!”

And how do you “prove” to him that it is? Aside from just believing that it is “in your head”? Aside from having it within your power [sans God] to impose a punishment on him?

Okay. Thanks for playing.

Sure thing.

Oh, and better luck next time. :wink:

Oh yeah, I forgot. You win because you are not convinced by my posts.

Well, congrats on your self-declared victory. :sunglasses: