Every argument that the objectivist makes is apparently loaded with assumptions. 
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.
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?? 
):
-
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.
Oh yeah, I forgot. You win because you are not convinced by my posts.
Well, congrats on your self-declared victory. 
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.
See this---->
That means my reaction is [by and large] tongue in cheek.
Though, sure, for you I will make an exception.
I know the wink.
But I honestly think that you believe that you are ‘winning’ these arguments. I see a lot of your ego. In fact, that’s a large part of your dilemma.
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?
That is your answer? A yes or a no might have done well enough.
That’s your answer to the points I raise?
Hmm. It must be one of those “serious philosophy” things.
You know, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
A lot of that revolves around a fierce inclination on my part to embrace polemics. And that flows in large part from the many, many years I spent as a political activist. But, sure, some of it is ego. Still, I honestly do not believe that I or anyone is able to come up with an argument here said to reflect the optimal point of view.
After all, how could my own frame of mind not be but the embodiment of all the particular experiences that I have had? How is one able transcend that with respect to interactions that revolve around is/ought?
In other words, in noting the experiences that I have had, that’s just another way of pointing out all of the many, many, many experiences that I have not had. And only a fool [in my opinion] would shrug that off with, “well, so what?”
You either “get” that part here as I do or you don’t.
But: It is that part – the part where, however different our experiences might be, some things are true for all of us – where I always focus the beam.
Right?
Besides, as I noted on the God and religion thread, you still have your convictions regarding morality and God. I don’t. So, you have got to be a lot closer to “peace of mind” than I am.
And, when push comes to shove, all the ego in the world is no match for that.
Wouldn’t you say?
“OPTIMAL point of view” ??? 
You don’t even have an argument against a sociopath killer. Ninety-five percent of the population can dismiss him as immoral and insane with a long list of valid reasons. Not you.
You need to find a way to distinguish between insane, crappy, pathetic, fairly-decent, not-bad, pretty-good and excellent points of view before moving on to the OPTIMAL. 
Some of those experiences increase your understanding of humanity and some are just gratuitous. Even with very limited experiences, one can understand the key points of the sociopath killer situation and the appropriate morality of the situation. If you don’t understand it, then you have lost some aspect of your humanity.
To endlessly accumulate experiences in the belief that you don’t have enough … that’s like endlessly accumulating money. Enough experiences for what? Enough money for what?
But you dismiss convictions regarding morality which are based on reason and which explicitly exclude God.
In effect, you have thrown away both God(faith) and reason and you are left with nothing. All you have is your own personal intellectual contraptions which are completely self-referential. The dasein contraption has separated you from all external tools. You need those tools … which is why you have to drop the dasein contraption.
The most reasonable, okay?
And the distinction that I make here is this…
…between arguments made regarding the most reasonable manner in which to send astronauts to Mars [as an engineering feat] and the most reasonable manner in which to decide whether we ought to given all the problems right here on earth that those billions of dollars money might be used to help solve or mitigate [as a moral quandary].
My argument however is that philosophers do not seem able to demonstrate that the sociopath is necessarily wrong [irrational] in choosing self-gratification as the moral font in a world without God.
And the fact is that many construe the aborting of babies or the execution of prisoners or the slaughter of animals or the waging of war to be the equivalent of sociopathic behavior.
There you go again, making the assumption that only those who think about these things as you do are able to “increase their understanding of humanity” in, say, the optimal way?
So, again, what is the “appropriate morality” with regard to the aborting of human babies? Which side has clearly “lost some aspect of their humanity”?
And how does one’s belief in God factor in here?
On the other hand, if your goal is to become an obstetrician, you need to accumulate the X amount of dollars necessary to acquire the education and degrees.
You will either reach that amount or you won’t.
But how many experiences would you need to accumulate in order to achieve the goal of resolving whether or not aborting a human baby is moral or immoral?
And what precisely would those experiences have to be?