questions without answers

WD … I have no questions.

I shared questions that St Augustine asked himself 1,600 years ago. Theologians, philosophers and ILP members participating in this OP are asking essentially some of the same questions today … they may or may not be aware of St Augustine who is held in high regard both as a philosopher and theologian.

I don’t know of anyone who is aware of the STUNNING parallels between what I quoted from St Augustine and what is gaining momentum today among a tiny group of intellectuals/scholars.

To the readers of my posts here …

My arrogance has revealed it’s ugly ‘face’ … yet again!

I want people to ‘see’ what I ‘see’ and I’m in a hurry to get there.

I apologize … please forgive me.

We all obviously want people to “see” what we see or we wouldn’t be posting in here. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Some of us are more in a hurry to get there and some are less in a hurry to get there. It nice to savor some things. It’s nice to allow some things to stew a bit. All kinds of flavors come out that way.

But why are you in a hurry to get there? Is it arrogance or simply impatience to move things along? Can that also be arrogance? :-k Perhaps not. Arrogance might only enter in when one cares little for what the other posts.

You are forgiven. Go in peace and more slowly. :evilfun:

iambiguous,

But we do that as a community, don’t we? The world of science, philosophy, psychology - I daresay even religion when it’s based on right reason and the search for truth, not fantasy. But maybe I’m wrong insofar as religion goes,.
Haven’t scientists always attempted to untangle the nature of reality and existence, bit by bit, each standing on the shoulders of those who came before?
It’s a very large task and the way I look at it, there can never be an end to it. But consider the progress we have made.

We also do this by trying to learn about who we are, exploring our selves individually and our psyches, what makes us “tick” , what our relationships to others consist of and how we relate to others.

It’s all a process. We turn on the light by discussion. How can one size fit all when we all come from different “places” but don’t we get closer to the truth when we begin to see shared ethical and moral values, and when we’re able to see the validity and right reason when it comes to some ethical and moral decisions - for instance the abortion issue? When it comes to human beings, can there actually be one absolute truth or can there only be a meeting of the minds, mutual agreement on what is considered to be valid and just reasonable?

I may have spoken too soon about what I said above. I don’t really like to make absolutist statements. There are areas which are either or.

I am interested in an example which you would give me between the either/or world and the world of is/ought.

I think that you’re looking for the holy grail, Iambiguous. :evilfun:
I changed my answer a bit to the above question. It isn’t that there aren’t answers as much as there are different perspectives different kinds of subjective thought. Maybe that’s obvious but I say it anyway. :mrgreen:
I may be wrong but would is/ought deal more with those moral/ethical questions?

Not necessarily wrong but just one of many. If it has validity, I don’t think it’s wrong. Why are there many different kinds of fish in the sea? lol Not a very good analogy maybe.

:-k I’m not sure I grasp what you’re saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more and/or give me an example? Your statement kind of raises a red flag for me but since I’m not really sure what you’re speaking about, I’ll wait for you to explain.

I don’t think that that is necessarily a bad thing. You might tend to be more cautious since you realize just how much ambiguity there appears to be in the world.

But isn’t it true that we can only take a thing so far? We have taken the time to think things out, to weigh all the pros and cons, to see what consequences may come from going this way or that way, and when that bell goes off in our heads - a “yes”, we simply take that best path and then just let go. We are only human and we cannot foresee all the consequences. Random things happen but again we weigh all things conscientiously and then take the plunge.

By ought, do you mean what is necessary to do, what you must do, what you see fit to do? lol I guess that’ll do it.

You asked the question: “How ought I to live”. Are you speaking of ethical questions here? That’s what I thought at first but now I’m not sure after having read the above. Are you speaking of anything that a person might desire to do, any path he may take to further his life?
Explain this to me a little further.

Sometimes people may enter into “how ought I to live” and how their lives might be affected? Of course, in the final analysis, we make our decisions and someone may always be hurt, not because we did a hurtful thing in reaching for our own stars, but because certain people would choose to keep us on their terms and not ours. If any of that made sense. There is often some kind of conflicted goods involved.

I hope that you realize that I was not referring above to the thread per se but to the non philosophical ways in which I respond. I’m not a scholar. 8-[
As to your last statement, I share your viewpoint.

Perhaps one could also use the word “brainstorming” here. Do you think that that fits?
It’s the things which CAN NEVER be known for certain which are vital perhaps because that is where conflicted goods and ethical issues enter in. Perhaps one can really reach THE TRUTH OF IT but we (all of us) may reach some little truths of it.

With regard to how I ought to live, I thought you might bring others into the equation. In an ideal world, our existence would also include the needs of others, no? and how to protect our natural resources for future generations.

So, we would all experience dasein differently though - but then again, insofar as you are using the world, many others might share the same
experience or outlook or …I’m groping for a word here that isn’t coming through.

With much skepticism and caution. I listened to his address last night, the whole hour and a half. I thought it went rather well for him - he wasn’t his usual “self” but for me it is easy for anyone to say what they want and what they will do but I also think that it is much ego for him. I think that he was kind of performing and trying to “win” over his opponents. I had the impression that he felt that all of this was going to be easy. There is so much of a process there - can he be that naive or is it just plain hubris? I may be wrong but I also had the sense that certain things had been set up also, kind of manipulation to smooth out ruffled feathers but I didn’t feel it was based on honesty and real commitment. But maybe I am wrong. Certain things just didn’t make sense based on previous remarks he made. I’m a skeptic.

It’s probably just me but I’m having difficulty seeing much of a distinction here. Can you shed more light on the above

Perhaps both sides need to stand back and take another look. Maybe a happy medium between both but I lean much more to how things were in the past. At the same time, things do have to evolve in a way…things always have a way of evolving, devolving is maybe a better word but I see no problem with a community of ILP who is friendly and kind of a social watering hole but within reason. Like the work break - then back to the real and important things. There are far too many non sensible threads on this forum. What comes to me is that if we are not part of the solution we are part of the problem. In other words, don’t even respond to the nonsense though at times that is difficult.

Oh, I would say that those with reasonable minds who more or less maintain balance in here, those who are able to see the difference between too much absurdity and inaneness ~~ and a little social frolicking which might be the icing on the cake in a philosophy forum. But that’s just my thinking and not necessarily “right”.

Things are not always right or wrong ~~ just more right than wrong and visa versa.
See, there is just so much ambiguity in the world. But isn’t it fun to try to plow through it?

I watched a movie the other night which brought home the question to me: "How ought I (or one) to live? It’s called Never Let Me Go. It was about children who were created to be genetically-engineered organ donors to serve their Originals, the ones which they were “cloned” after. It reminded me of nazi Germany.

These poor children were bred and manipulated and brainwashed into believing only one thing - it was their duty after growing up to one day sacrifice their selves through a number of operations - through giving their organs. They were raised to believe/to know this and that at some point there would be that last “donation” which would end their lives. I began to question how these adults could possibly not run away, not want to be free, not realize what was being done to them. Of course, it dawned on me that it was embedded in their brains and their minds that this was to be their journey - how could they respond or react otherwise?. A few, who were more aware even if unconsciously, wanted to postpone the inevitable by “receiving” deferrals. In other words, two people in love might be able to wait a while before going throught the organ donations but that was all a hoax. Anyway – it made me realize (though I already realize) just how inhumane and callous we can be as humans.

These children were nothing more than cattle to these adults who lied to them.
I suppose that they felt that since they were “clones” they were not entitled to be free and to live happy productive lives. They saw nothing of the beauty and what was real about them ~ they were just tools to be used.The Originals evidently had the money to “clone” their selves. No one seemed to see these children and later adults as “individuals in their own right”. They were just forms of slaves to be used when it was called for.
The movie broke my heart and made me so angry. It was science fiction but then again who knows how far science without compassion, ethics and restraints can go?

After all was said and done, I asked myself the question: Under what set of circumstances might I do what these originals did? Would I be capable of doing the same thing in order to survive, to perpetuate my life and perhaps the life of my children? Can I really know what I would be capable of doing under certain circumstances if I had the opportunity? I left the question unanswered because sadly can I really answer that question though I might want to believe that I would be incapable of it? Even thinking about it at this moment, the tears are rolling down my face.
The question: “How ought I to live” doesn’t necessarily give all the answers especially when it comes to issues of the quality of life ~~ and death, those hardcore questions. I can’t imagine myself to ever be a nazi pig but in moments and situations which go way beyond any norm which we can imagine ~~ how would I choose to live?
Just another ambiguous question.

There are those who feel that they are totally responsible for their being self-determined and those who take the futile, pessimistic attitude of having no autonomy at all.

That’s how I would sum the movie I saw. At the same time, there has to be some code by which we live, some way in which we could and would see the true horizon beyond good and evil. Peering through that ambiguity to make sense of what would cause the least harm and the greatest amount of good. We all have different answers to that.

That’s profound. It brings me back to Rilke’s beautiful words:

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

That gives us the incentive and courage to continue on living, not just despite it all, but because of it all. After all, isn’t that all we have?

Arc … your thoughtful post covers a lot of ground … my intuitive reaction seems to nudge me towards one of the questions you raised …

Here are the thoughts/memories that pop into my consciousness … in no particular order

  1. I was born that way … it’s a large part of “who I am”. I ran away from home the first time after grade 11 … more permanently after grade 12 … my escape was facilitated by my acceptance into the Royal Military College (St Jean Quebec) … I had truly hit a jackpot … I could get paid while getting my university education … being a member of a family of 10 … other prospects weren’t so good. I survived the first year … too much “yes sir” … “no sir” … “three bags full sir” . I set a record in my year at military college … the most “circles” for a first year student. A “circle” was once around the parade square at 6:00 AM or so … a form of punishment. My record may still be holding.

  2. I never returned to university full time. I completed the CMA(Accounting) program by correspondence only because I was refused a job on the basis “no ticket … no ride” ergo … to get on the bus/train/aircraft one must first buy a ticket.

  3. Reflecting on this … seems my character fit the “times” I was born into. Few would deny that our world has been … and continues to be … in a particular/unusual hurry to get somewhere in the past 65 years.

  4. My current age … 66 … if I am to ‘see’ the fruits of my labour … yes another form of arrogance … it must happen soon.

  5. My family situation … I long to be reconciled with my children … grand children … siblings and so on … IMO … my only hope is to achieve some respect for what I’ve spent the past 25 years doing … you mentioned it … I’ve been searching for the Holy Grail.

I remind myself every day of the counsel you provided …

Sometimes the “peace” and “slowly” lasts an hour … sometimes a day … sometimes a week … and so on. Inevitably something happens and I’m thrown back into the turbulence of life. The most pleasant memories I have of “peace” and “slowly” are the 4,000+ kilometres of the Camino Santiago I walked along … mostly alone.

:laughing: Very cute Arc. If you dislike the educator aspect of your soul, which was solidified in your above post, what would you rather it be called?

tom wrote

Alone?

Not completely true … my “walking stick” accompanied me … details about my walking stick are posted here …

pilgrimtom.weebly.com/my-walking-stick.html

But what doesn’t change here is this:

The gap that still does exist between all of the things that we speculate about on all of the threads created here and the manner in which the conclusions arrived at either do or do not fit into the very ontological nature of existence itself.

Thus someone like James S. Saint can insist that regarding the “physics of psychology”, this…

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=192555

…reflects what is true.

My point though is always to make that crucial distinction between what he believes here “in his head” to be true and what he can actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe “in their heads” in turn.

So, does he? Or, for that matter, do I myself in regard to my own contributions here?

Yes, but to what extent is the philosopher then able to transcend the parts rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, in order to arrive at a frame of mind said to reflect the optimal or the only rational understanding of human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. And that is the part I zero in on.

With respect to issues like abortion there are any number of questions in which there clearly are answers. And the answers are apllicable to all of us. Again, the world of either/or.

But when we actually bring speculation like this down to earth and assess its applicibility/relevance to an issue like abortion, we soon bump into all of the conflicting renditions of what it means to “turn on the light”, to get “closer to the truth”, to share “valid and right reasons”.

That’s why I always advocate democracy and the rule of law [moderation, negotiation, comnpromise] over might makes right or right makes might. But that doesn’t make this…

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

…go away. So I come to places like ILP in order to explore the narratives of those who profess not to be entangled in it.

It [u][b]should[/u][/b] raise a red flag! It basically revolves around the assumption that in a Godless universe human behaviors are “beyond good and evil”. Or, as someone once suggested, that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Why? Because all things can be rationalized.

And then there is the mentality of the sociopath. He starts with the assumption that in a Godless universe morality revolves solely around self-gratification.

All behaviors are then permitted providing that you don’t get caught doing something that others don’t approve of. And provided that if you are caught you are willing and able to endure the consequences – the punishments of those who do not subscribe to this frame of mind.

Or the nihilistic agenda of those who own and operate the global economy today. Doesn’t it basically revolve around 1] show me the money 2] what’s in it for me and 3] I’ve got mine, Jack.

Yes, but folks all along the political spectrum come to different – conflicting – conclusions regarding the part where the bell goes off. And the part where they find the right path.

Then what? Again, the option [as I see it] is generally a very, very complex intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy.

Ought to because it is the right [moral, ethical] thing to do.

Thus:

Okay, I’ll try. On other threads, mr reasonable and I would go back and forth about this very distinction.

He is convinced that playing the stock market is something that he ought to do because in playing the stock market it affords him the opportunity to live a particular lifestyle. Once that is settled “in his head” he can then focus on what he ought to do in order to be successful at it.

But others argue that playing the stock market is something which ethical men and women ought not to do. Why? Because it is linked to the capitalist political economy which they have come to conclude is an exploitative system that must be overthrown and replaced with something else. Socialism for example.

Very different “oughts”, right?

Take capital punishment.

Suppose you believe that Texas has executed more prisoners in recent years than any other state in the union. Is this true? Well, you can google it: mic.com/articles/51647/kimberly … .M4ODSzJ9U

And if you suspect that this is all [or mostly] fabricated there are any number of sources in the criminal justice system that you can go to in order to get the facts. And, given this, I’d suggest that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.

But suppose you believe that capital punishment is wrong. That it is immoral and not reflective of a civilized people.

How would you go about demonstrating that all rational human beings are obligated to believe that it’s true?

Here you bump into this: deathpenalty.procon.org/view.res … eID=002000

Both sides accumulate particular political prejudices that, from my point of view, are largely rooted in dasein. They come to embody conflicting goods such that both sets of arguments can be deemed reasonable – given an initial set of assumptions.

Thus both sides make arguments that the arguments of the other side can’t and don’t and won’t make go away.

Finally, what counts out in the real world is which side has the actual power to enforce a particular moral/political agenda.

I saw that movie too. In fact, I included my own reaction to it in my film thread:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2366290&hilit=Mark+Romanek#p2366290

And, yes, most of us will react to it disapprovingly. Just as most of us will react to Nazi Germany disapprovingly. I know that I do. But I also have no illusions that this reaction is anything other than an existential contraption. There are, after all, many, many others who would not react disapprovingly at all.

Thus how would the philosophers go about constructing an argument able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to react to either context in The Right Way?

My own reaction to “codes of behavior” is, first of all, to note all of the different renditions that have appeared over the centuries. And then to note that “serious philosophers” have yet to actually sink their analytic assessments into these conflicting and contradictory rituals, customs, folkways, mores, laws etc., in order to yank out a frame of mind that is able to be demonstrated as the optimal point of view.

And those that tried [like Kant] ever and always alluded to one or another transcendent moral font. Which most called God. Or “the Gods”.

Organs don’t come much more major than the heart.

Named God?

No … named walking stick … some might call it a “staff”

OTH … different folks have different views on what a walking stick/staff may symbolize … I’m good with “it’s a piece of wood”

Oh, I thought God was your support throughout your treks.

Yes … God has been my support all my life … as I mentioned in another OP … the demarcation line between NO awareness and awareness happened about 25 years ago.

OTH … perhaps there is some truth in a notion I have often heard and read … paraphrasing … God hearkens no competition.

This notion may explain the path chosen by the desert fathers who sought isolation from the world … the Buddhist monks who sought remote isolated caves to practice their meditation.

Perhaps it is difficult to hear God’s soft voice … His whisper … in the crowd.

On my treks I had no agenda … no time table … no destination … and most of the walking was “off road” … goat trails … away from the crowd.

Then you were not alone, ever. Yes, when God chooses to converse, quiet solitude lacks distractions.

I wrote the below:

I’m just kind of quirky that way. I do prefer some words over others. I believe that an educator educates in ways which I cannot - but I may be wrong.
I don’t really see myself as one who is “skilled” in teaching.
I do like to shed some “light” on things though and to try to give another way of thinking. lol
I suppose that one can call that an educator.

See, not much of an educator. But again, I can understand based on my answers how that word would crop up.

Iambiguous,

I’m beginning to work on it. :evilfun: Kind of strapped for time this week.

iambiguous,

I may be wrong here but is there actually much of a distinction there when what it appears to come down to is simply “belief” ~~ does it matter who is doing the believing? Of course, we do have to look "to the source.
I may not be understanding your statement though.

That would necessarily depend on the individual philosopher and on his desire to think objectively as much as possible and not simply subjectively - according to how he himself alone views things.

By attempting to think in a more logical as opposed to a more emotional way when examining all issues thoroughly.

Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow said:

“Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. It is wise to take admissions of uncertainty seriously, but declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.”

He also said:

“Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

By being more aware of our biases and how they reflect our thinking and trying to transcend them or plow through them.

What criteria is used to form an objective viewpoint on these so-called answers?
For instance, insofar as a particular abortion issue goes, what particular answer would apply to all?

Why is this? Because when it comes down to life and death and quality of life issues which are close to the heart, we all tend to subjectify things according to our life experiences maybe?

Carl Jung once said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that life gives us problems and it is up to us to find solutions to them.
Can there actually be solutions to some things? Sometimes life is so messy. Where do we start? That’s a subjective reaction. lol

I agree with the above. “Might makes right” is simply based on ego and arrogance and a lack of clear thinking ~ at least to me and “right makes might” is not necessarily true either unless one honestly has the courage of his/her convictions and the will and courage to make things happen.

But is that necessarily a negative thing to keep in mind? Being aware of that may help us transcend subjectivity long enough to focus “outside of ourselves” in a manner of speaking.

I wonder just how many we can say there are? If I say that our natural resources are precious and that if we misuse them, we will not have them for long, there will still be others who will turn around and say “so what” - what’s the big deal".
If I say, with Carl Jung, that truth is based on the concert of “many voices”, than how does that pertain to Nazi Germany, which could, in my eyes, readily refute that saying?

Well, then, you might have to ask yourself why it was that you determined to go in this direction and not that? After reflecting on that, you might come to realize that at the time it was the best and only way for you to go. Then you detach from the thought.

Within reason, we have to have the courage of our convictions and why we did this and not that - unless we eventually come to see that there might have been a better way. After all, we are not perfect and we do not think perfectly and in such a complete, thorough way but we strive to as we go along.

.

Have you come to any conclusion about WHY they are not entangled in it?

But we have evolved into consciousness and conscience. What rational humane being would think that way? It sounds like more of an excuse to me.
Even without a god, there can be a moral and ethical way of behavior even if it may have in part arisen from the instinct for humanity to survive.
Wasn’t morality and an ethical way of living already infused in people before the concept of a god or a personal god appeared on Earth?
There are atheists who have more of a positive code of living than that of many christians.

That wouldn’t be conducive to our survival. It’s a thought not well thought out by barbarians. lol

So, what would YOU yourself use as a yardstick to determine that what you have done is necessarily satisfactory and the “right thing” to have done?
Don’t you think that at some point one has to have confidence or trust that what they have done or what they do was/is rooted in and came from the most positive part of them which also seeks no harm? We can live in a degree of uncertainly since we cannot see a whole picture (which is why we use cognitive thinking) without becoming scrupulous - which would only tend to make us paralyzed or frozen, psychically speaking.

Perhaps it does all come down to how perception reveals brain differences or how the brain influences individual perception, notwithstanding how we choose to hold to the same patterns which we have developed.

scientificamerican.com/arti … nt-jan-11/

So, how do we move away from that “ought” when it may be sullied by bias and simply personal opinion since it is not necessarily based on actual truth but on subjective thinking and personal preference ~~ which may be faulty?

I may be wrong here since I don’t really know you but you seem to thrive in ambiguity and uncertainty :evilfun: …like I love the mystery of the unknown and unrevealed and the uncertain, and see beauty in it, you would appear to love the unending unanswered ad continuum questions without answers. Maybe one of the reasons I love this kind of art.

[tab]https://www.google.com/search?q=jackson+pollock+paintings&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ0qrjqs_SAhXIx4MKHXVADJIQ_AUIBigB&biw=1093&bih=530#imgrc=9p1-StNAcAkqnM:[/tab]

Insofar as the stock market scenario goes, I don’t necessarily believe that those “oughts” are so different. They are just the opposites sides of the same coin and are based on personal preferences stemming from belief and so-called necessity issuing from unconscious fear at times. This probably goes back to the brain/perception concept.

Yes.
As far as the stock market scenario goes, mr. reasonable at some point might come to change his “ought” thinking insofar as it was not so wise an endeavor or way of thinking but I’m probably wrong there. I would say that mr. has a gambler’s spirit. We’re all gamblers in some ways or other ways but we pick and choose those ways - some are safer than others and with some, we are robbed of our personal freedoms.

The same goes for the ones opposed to playing the stock market. One cannot fully know the effect of either decision on the economy.
Okay, I’m rambling…

No rational human being is obligated to believe that a particular thing IS true but we are obligated to search out what, in actuality, IS objectively true under different circumstances and what would cause the least amount of harm.

Let us suppose that capital punishment is, under certain circumstances, the only reasonable, just, intelligent way to go. How to prove that?

Show the crime photos of the poor child who was raped and then murdered by the predator. Who in their right mind would not opt for capital punishment under those circumstances?

Civilized people are not necessarily sentimental, indulging in empathy and compassion toward those who do not deserve it, when what is necessary is to protect the children and society from predators and psychopaths.

Of course, the only terrible fly in the ointment so to speak would be if an innocent man were to die. But when we know beyond the shadow of a doubt and not just based on some circumstantial evidence that he/she committed a heinous crime - that head has to roll, in a matter of speaking.

Ah, such a difficult task to meet. That is where ambiguity will always “live on” in a sense.

I realize that what I said above about the heinous crimes of predators deserving capital punishment may sound absolutist and it was. But I also do realize that there are extenuating circumstances ~ like insanity and/or other deeply disturbing mental illness issues that need to be brought into account. For me, a predator who loves and lives for what he does does deserve capital punishment though some would say that that itself is a sign of insanity.
But then again - what do we do with cancer cells?

“I do not rest on the broad upland of a system that includes a series of sure statements about the absolutes, but on a narrow, rocky ridge between the gulfs where there is no sureness of expressible knowledge but [only] the certainty of meeting what remains, undisclosed.”
― Martin Buber

Disapprovingly is putting it mildly, Iam.
I wonder about the kind of people who would not react disapprovingly. Would they be the people for whom “anything goes”, people who exercise a complete and personal laissez faire attitude? People for whom other children have no deep value or right to happiness? People who have no code at all that they live by?

How could anyone not be enraged over children being brought into this world simply to be slaves, to have their organs harvested and sold until finally their bodies just give way and die. That attitude in itself is a nazi attitude, is it not?
When we’ve reached the point that something like this becomes blase and normal to us, that’s when humanity ought to just pack it in because then we have become far far far less than human.

…or live and let live.

A very good and tragic example of the above is a play called “Good”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(play

Good is a play about the causes rather than the consequences of Nazism, about morality and seduction. It explores how a “good” man gets caught up in the intricate web of personal and social reasons why the average person might be seduced in to what we see as abhorrent. The author thus rejects the view that the Nazi atrocities are explained as a result of the simple conspiracy of criminals and psychopaths. Further the lesson of Nazism and the play are not just about the revulsion of six million dead but a warning about popular movements that lead to holocausts. Not judgmental of its protagonist, Good invites to question just what a “good” man is and does and where the bounds of responsibility lie.[2]

How dangerous it can be when we are not aware of how easy it can be to morally detach ourselves from things if we are not vigilant to our flaws and laziness ~~ how easy it is to become something other than what we “think” we are. Why?

Why indeed ~~ when we are nothing but Good!

First, I would let go of the word “virtuous”. lol Then the phrase “The Right Way” would have to be defined or redefined.

Do you mean to say that they have not actually barely touched the surface?

I have an intuition that I would not make a very good philosopher of ethics since I am not much of a detached person in some ways. My personal biases might so enter in. lol

Again, the distinction [my distinction] revolves around the world of either/or, where someone is able to demonstrate that in fact something is true [Mary did have an abortion], and the world of is/ought, where someone believes that something is true [abortion is immoral] but she is not able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to share that belief in turn.

On the other hand, this gets tricky. Why? Because if you believe that something is true, you will behave as though what you believe is true. And then, whether it is true or not, there will still be consequences. And then the lives of others are impacted [for better or worse] by/in these consequences.

Thus whether it can be demonstrated [philosophically or otherwise] that abortion is either moral or immoral, there will still be a particular set of laws that either prescribe or proscribe actual behaviors.

From my frame of mind, the world of is/ought is ever bursting at the seams with folks who have high confidence in their own moral narratives. Even when the narratives completely contradict each other.

My point then is to suggest that this is rooted largely in dasein rather than in one or another deontological – philosophical, religious, ideological, natural etc. – assessment of human interaction.

On the other hand, the moral and political objectivists will all insist that ignorance can be vanquished if only everyone will embrace their own narrative. Ignorance to them is a defect, ignorance to me is embedded instead in my dilemma above. To be ignorant of “the right thing to do” is just an acknowledgment that this can never be known.

Unless, of course, it can. But then someone must be able to convince me of that. In other words, to demonstrate that what they choose to do is that which all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to do in turn.

The criteria would revolve around facts. Facts able to be shared. For example, it is a fact that the Republicans in Congress were not able to replace Obama’s health care package with their own. Now, can or cannot that be established as in fact true objectively for all of us?

Of course it possible for someone to argue that unless you were there when these decisions were being made you can’t know with absolute certainty that it is true. Who knows, maybe the whole thing was being staged by the folks behind the curtain. Or maybe the solipsists are correct.

Even here objectivity still requires leaps, right?

On the other hand how do we go about demonstrating whether Obama or Trump are being more reasonable regarding health care in America? Which of the plans reflects a more virtuous approach to healthcare?

And that’s before we get to the parts here that are embedded in political economy. The medical industrial complex.

My argument regarding speculation like this is always the same though. It reflects a “general description” of human interaction. But once these conjectures are embedded in an actual existential context, the manner in which we have “thought this through in our head” – as it applies to an issue like abortion – is still no less entangled in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Yes, it revolves [by and large] around this:

[b]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”.[/b]

In other words, in order to sustain a “self” that is construed to be both whole and virtuous, objectivists reap the psychological rewards of seeming to be both complete and coherent. “I” becomes less a fragmented, fractured existential contraption and more a frame of mind that is only as it should be.

But, again, this is far more applicable to the world of is/ought. The world of either/or is [reasonably] true for all of us — however much we might come into conflict regarding what it is.

Again [from my frame of mind], another “general description” of human interaction. But: What does it mean to be “rational and humane” when confronting any of the hundreds and hundreds of moral and political conflicts that have beset the species down through the ages?

Here I note the manner in which I see these conflicts as hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And all I can do then to is hear out the arguments of those who claim not to be entangled in it.

Take any political conflagration — abortion, homosexuality, gender roles, animal rights, gun control, the role of government, social, political and economic justice, separation of church and state, capital punishment, war and peace, …and on and on and on…

You tell me: Which human behaviors here will be more rather than less “conducive to our survival”?

I don’t have “yardstick” here. Instead, I note the manner in which reasonable arguments can be from many conflicting sides, arguments derived largely from dasein.

Yes, but what happens when those on both sides of any particular moral/political divide embrace this frame of mind, and still insist that their own agenda is less uncertain and reflects a greater understanding of the whole picture?

The real world in other words.

The closer one gets to oblivion, and the more one immerses oneself in a world bursting at the seams with human pain and suffering [following the news for example], the more one comes face to face with the implications of living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world.

One or another rendition of this in other words: youtu.be/VKcAYMb5uk4

But: That frame of mind is always embedded in 1] a particular philosophy of life and 2] a particular set of circumstances.

You reach a particular juncture then when the ambiguity and the uncertainty becomes increasingly less tolerable. But it would seem then that few frames of mind are more embedded in dasein than this one.

Yet many on the other side insist that “who in their right mind would sanction the state taking the life of a citizen”. And there will always be a pile of mitigating and aggravating circumstances that tug us in both directions. And what of the pain and the suffering that will be inflicted on the loved ones of the prisoner who is executed? They committed no crime. They too are innocent. Or may well be.

Again, there are any number of political narratives that can be raised here. But where is the argument that makes the conflicting points brought up by all sides go away?

What argument encompasses the optimal or the only “civilized” thing to do?

That seems to by another rendition of this:

For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.
— William Barrett

And then for folks like me that’s just around the corner from this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And then, well, here we are: me tugging others down into it or others yanking me up out of it.

That’s just one way to look at it though. Depending on how you construe the meaning of the Good, one’s morals may or may not go out the window. In fact, once you are convinced that the Nazis have come to embody the Good, then right and wrong becomes embedded in construing the world as a battle between “one of us” and “one of them”.

Or “good and evil” comes to revolve around the “masters” and the “slaves”. The masters invested either in might makes right or right makes might. Or, from the perspective of the sociopath, it ever and always revolves around self-gratification. You may not share this point of view, but how do you make it go away? Philosophically, for example.

Politically, on the other hand, the alternatives seem to be either might makes right/right makes might, or democracy and the rule of law.

From my frame of mind there is no surface. There are only points of view regarding a particular rendition of the surface that is rooted historically, culturally and experientially. And in a world in which human interactions are ever tangled, knotted, twisted etc., in contingency, chance and change.

Right. So there are no absolutely identifiable either/or’s, there are many choices which signify probability curves, as most likely.

Perspectivism and contextualism , reduced to the need for immediacy of results in absolute distinctions.