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. )
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
He’s making himself the center of the world. Unless you can make him agree with you, it’s all in your head.
He can evade this accusation by arguing that it is not him but humanity that he’s placing at the center of the world. In other words, unless you can make 90% of humanity agree with you, it’s all in your head.
He’s an arrogant clown who does not want to accept that judgement is in the brain, not outside of it, and that the sole difference between good and bad judgments is the amount of experience that is processed.
Who the fuck gives a shit whether others agree with you or not when you can tell that they are not thinking at all?
Thinking is digestion. Not thinking is indigestion. These people are not digesting their experiences. Doesn’t matter how much experienced they are.
He’s an egalitarian who believes in “lowest common denominator judgment” that can be applied by anyone to perceive anything.
No such thing. True judgment is organic. Can’t be separated from the individual.
iam - does it ever occur to you that people sometimes change their minds, even about abortion, and that the arguments put forth by others sometimes have an influence on that decision?
Sure, but what’s that got to do with the points that Gib and I are exploring on this thread pertaining to prong #1 and prong #2?
Have you been following the discussion?
And how is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy any less relevant in such exchanges?
We change our minds precisely because we do encounter [existentially] new experiences, new relationships, new sources of knowledge and information. Otherwise I would still be condemning those who either recieve or perform abortions as Sinners in the eyes of God.
Also, changing your mind is one thing, arguing there is a direction one can go that brings them closer to the “whole truth” something entirely different.
Whether that direction is derived from either God [and the tools of theologians] or Reason [and the tools of philosophers].
And isn’t that basically what the moral and political objectivists [idealists] do?
)
):