Again, if you choose not to go there – and it certainly appears to me that this is the case – all I can note is the extent to which the distinction you make is something that, to me, is encompassed only in an argument.
From my perspective, there are…
1] facts that either can or cannot be established in the video above and…
2] our reactions [emotional and otherwise] to abortion expressed as individual value judgments
Objective truth or subjective opinion? That’s the most crucial distinction to be made once we leave the domain of either/or and enter the domain of is/ought.
Yes, that is more or less my own set of assumptions here.
But: How then is Fixed Cross’s “self-valuing logic” then made applicable outside that abortion clinic, or that execution chamber, or those political rallies attended by supporters of Clinton or Trump?
How in other words does his “self-valuing logic” enable him to extricate himself from my dilemma above?
How, finally, is it made applicable to the manner in which I consture conflicting human interactions here re the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
To moral and political objectivists, I issue the same challenge: Let’s situate this “out in the world” existentially and explore it.
If by “purely rational” you mean that which we believe to be true “in our head” is able to be demonstrated as in fact in sync with the objective world around us – re physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology etc – then I would agree it transcends dasein.
But what can be spoken of as “purely rational” pertaining to conflicting value judgments?
It would be one thing if we were able to establish rationally that one side in the abortion wars was right and the other side was wrong.
But both sides are able to make entirely reasonable argument given a particular set of assumptions that the other side’s arguments don’t make go away.
And that’s before we get to the argument of the narcissist who asserts that morality for him or her revolves solely around self-gratification.
Which is precisely why I argue that to the extent you [u]do[/u] situate the values of any particular individual out in a particular world is the extent to which you bump into the limitations of philosophy in its pursuit of the truly rational.
But over and again I point out that just because I argue for these limitations doesn’t mean that they exist. It simply means that of late no one has managed to convince me that there are no limitations here. If, in fact, believing that your own values are the “natural” one enables you psychologically to ground “I” in a wholistic point of view, then that “works” for you.
After all, for all practice purposes, the behaviors you choose will be predicated on what you believe to be true. And that may or may not be in sync with what is in fact true.
I’m just arguing that to me it does not appear reasonable to suggest that, in using the tools of philosophy, one or another deontological morality can be established.
Exactly. How on earth would philosophers ever be able to actually establish that incest is necessarily immoral? How would one’s own attitude about it not be embedded existentially in dasein, in conflicting goods – debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index … ult_incest – and [ultimately] in politics?
Yes, but here common sense is able to be examined, explored and tested by science. It can be shown that in fact the earth does revolve around the sun. But: what of those who insist that it is common sense that God created both? Or of those who insist that it is common sense that billions and billions of dollars ought to be allocated for space exploration, while others insist it is common sense that these dollars be spent solving more pressing problems right here on earth?
Indeed what though?
How does this assumption manage to align itself with FC’s Grand Scheme when we are among those embracing conflicting value judgments in a world where behavior must either be prescribed or proscribed legally/politically?