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?
Are you arguing here that you explicitly exclude God? That’s news to me.
On the other hand, I have never really been able to pin down how you actually view these relationships at the intersection of God and Reason.
And what I argue is that moral and political narratives are rooted in dasein – daseins interacting in a world of conflicting goods; and in a world where what counts is the extent to which [through wealth and power] one is able to enforce their own narrative.
I never threw them away. Instead, re God and Reason, I situate my “self” existentially here:
[b][i]1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
[/i][/b]And, by all means, site a few examples of how you, in using these “external tools”, are yourself able to integrate God and Reason into your interactions with others that come into conflict re the sort of things that Gib and I are discussing re prong #2 above.
Practically every argument that I have presented to you, has excluded God. But you keep putting Him back in.
God gave people Reason so that they could solve their problems.
I don’t remember what prong2 means.
And the decision is made in the same way by thinking and evaluating - risk/reward - cost/benefit -doable/nondoable.
If you can’t solve the problem of the sociopath raping and murdering women … what’s the point of moving on to abortion?
You are admitting that you have no method or technique for making decisions.
I know. Your position is that there are no better or worse way of thinking about these things. In effect, you have turned off your brain. How can it be described in any other way??
Again, you turned off your brain and you cannot differentiate between useful and useless knowledge … new experiences and repeat experiences.
What can one say to a person who has done that?
Sorry everyone,
Have not been able to reply. Proly won’t for the next few days. Too busy.
I’ll have a quick read through all the replies when I find time.
That describes how you live your life, but I was asking about your approach to engaging with people, and objectivists in particular, in any attempts you might undertake towards resolving your dilemma. It seems, from my encounters with you in this thread, it’s not the traditional objectivist one (arguing for why you’re right), but rather an inquisitive one.
Well, in my view, all philosophical arguments are defense mechanisms.
I’ve been telling you that it doesn’t. You seem to be stuck on the assumption that if I am to have an approach towards resolving conflict between myself and others, that approach must involve my theory of consciousness somehow, as if the only way, even as an alternative to the objectivist approach, to approaching conflict with others is by bringing your “ism” to the table in one way or another. I’m telling you, I don’t typically do that (not in “real world conflicts”). I feel my best chances at success would be to suggest new, healthier, more cooperation-inducing ideas that start with the other person’s beliefs and values. ← You do understand, this is the key essential difference between the traditional objectivist approach (as I’m calling it) and the subjectivist approach, don’t you?
I don’t think it’s meant to (TBH, at this point, I’m not entirely sure I know what your dilemma is); I’m just answering your questions at this point.
And by “who I am”–the ‘I’ there is you personally–Biggy–correct? You’re saying that your sense of self is anchored, not in a moral “ism”, but in the substantial, objective, empirical, substantive world around you?
Ok, but this is why I’m getting confused about what your dilemma is. Sure, it’s applicable to everyone, but what are you more concerned with–how it applies to others or how it applies to you–this will tell me which is more of a dilemma to you. Based on your response just above, it seems I was right to second guess your concern over your own ‘I’ fragmenting as you seem, based on what you said, to have a relatively strong sense of self given that you identify it with the substantial, objective, etc., etc., etc., world around you (thus confirming what I said: the real empirical world has far more sway over one’s beliefs than mere philosophical contemplations).
On that point, there’s also a bit of confusion, on my part, over prong #2 of your dilemma. You talk about real-world consequences, but what are you more concerned with here–what’s more of a dilemma to you: the fact that we have to deal with inter-personal conflict, or the fact that objectivists have not (or cannot) arrive at a demonstrably correct argument about all things moral?
This can only be the case if you’re actually cooperating with the sociopath to establish reasons why he should kill you (agreeing to stick to reason is a form of cooperation with your contender), which tells me that you’re interested in exploring the sociopath’s justifications only to the extent that you’re interested in a bit of armchair philosophy. But if a sociopath actually had you cornered in a dark grungy basement with a knife in his hand ready to kill you, and he took a moment out to justify why he was killing you (like the villains often do in the movies before they attempt to kill the good guy), I highly doubt that Biggy would sit there contemplating the sociopath’s reasons: hmmm… well, let’s think about this for a second; he does raise some interesting points. In a world sans God, what reason does he not have to satisfy his own self-gratification…
Yep, I agree with this.
It seems you are interested only in an objectivist’s approach to establishing a particular morality (which, as I pointed out before, might only intensify the conflict). ← We’ll call this prong #2a, prong #2b being how to resolve conflict with others. 
^ This reinforces my suspicions about what you’re most interested in–that you wish to see, for once, an objectivist’s answer to the question “Who’s right?”–an answer that actually works, in your view, such that it doesn’t succumb to the same old “fragmentation” when thrown into the dasein mix of real-world conflicts, prejudices, and moral judgements, an answer whose objective integrity survives the fray.
I can see how my divorcing of my subjectivist “ism” from my approach to resolving conflict between myself and others would only work to frustrate this aim, and that if I did offer the logic of my subjectivist “ism” (which I attempted to when I offered you a link to a free copy of my book in a PM), it wouldn’t seem all that different from any other objectivist’s existential contraption/fabrication. ← This is why I’ve been up front about the fact that my theory can’t help you in this regard. I’ve only been suggesting that it helps in regards to resolving conflict between one’s self and others (as an alternative approach to the traditional objectivist approach), which, as I said above, is subtlely different from coughing up the kind of “objectivist demonstration” for why one’s “ism” is right. (Furthermore, the subjectivist approach to resolving conflict that I’ve been trying to explain isn’t exclusive to subjectivist’s–it’s perfectly usable by objectivists too–just that I think objectivists would have a rougher go at it because it would feel, at best, like temporarily putting aside their goal of proving their “ism” to others, and at worse, betraying their own values and integrity).
How can you agree with this? …
… and (apparently) disagree with this ? …
When he is using different words to say the same thing??
I take Biggy’s meaning to be: a decisive demonstration of an objective argument–you know, an argument that finally convinces everybody, even the sociopath (or visa-versa with the sociopath convincing everybody).
This one I’ll stick to.
You need a decisive demonstration for someone who feels no empathy for anyone and is only concerned about himself?
If you need to decisively convince the sociopath then that means that your entire morality is founded on the beliefs of sociopaths.
Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?
I don’t, but that’s what Biggy’s looking for. I agree with him that it can’t be dished up. Doesn’t mean it’s the only thing I rely on.
I don’t get it.
Well, you’re asking for the morality to be approved by sociopaths. That’s giving them control over the contents of the morality.
Which brings up ‘negotiation’.
Surely, not all moral principles are negotiable?