Okay, I get your distinction and meaning between either/or and is/ought.
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.
, you will behave as if something is true. So, you are making the statement of how beliefs can influence and impact our lives and how necessary it is to examine them.
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.
Well, considering how we have seen laws changing, the question "How ought I to live" enters in here, not being answered according to what we necessarily believe, but what is the greatest good for all concerned.
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.
There comes a time for many of us (hopefully) though where we grow into the self-realization that the effects of our individual human experiences, how they have ultimately come to effect our own thinking, and who we "believe" we have become as a result of them, are capable of causing biased perceptions and beliefs which we hang onto. This knowledge can be the means which hold us in restraints and allow us to "take another look" as far as what is the most favorable action to take based on "true" value and not on individual need and belief.
Kahneman also said:“Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.
I find this to be true and also because we are not comfortable with living in ambiguity.
We need solutions and resolutions NOW.
But I do intuit that there ARE parts of our lives where we can try to make more sense of them by reflection and practical means and can succeed.
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.
Embracing them are helpful but not enough. That's just the first step of the journey. Studying them is important too. But I'm not sure what you mean here by "embracing"them. Are you speaking here of "amor fati" or simply calling them to mind, gathering them in?
Ignorance to them is a defect
I have two ways of defining "ignorance". One is never
having learned something and the other is "having learned" something but still not getting it or caring to get it. There is a distinction there for me. Anyway, the latter to me is more of a defect or a flaw in a person. I have a problem seeing the former as a defect but I may be wrong. Knowledge is important. The more we know, the more capable we are of making clean practical decisions.
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.
I don't agree with you here unless I'm not understanding your meaning.
This kind of borders on futilism, don't you think? NEVER BE KNOWN? I will say though that at times it is only in "hindsight" when we come to know if something was the so-called "right thing to do" or not.
There are too many variables and people concerned to know definitely how something will turn out. We don't live in a vacuum.
But there is still something about your statement that doesn't ring true for me. It seems to me that with this mind set a person would freeze up/be paralyzed and wouldn't be able to make any decision. All we can Do is make a decision based on as many facts as we have.
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.
Yes, and you seem to have said it here. There are those who are rational. (I don't so much like the world virtuous.) Maybe noble would be better suited here. Not all men and women are rational and noble so how could something having to do with morality/ethics, what ought to be done be embraced by all? But you did say all rational....Humans are also individuals with freedom of choice and different ways of looking at something and how things ought to be done. But I may be wrong here. I suppose it would have to be something which is a matter of life and death like those who fought in the French Resistance. Those men and women "knew" that their only choice in a sense took choice away from them. If that made any sense. I sometimes have difficulty in expressing myself.
For instance, insofar as a particular abortion issue goes, what particular answer would apply to all?
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?
Perhaps it is also a fact that many Republicans saw that move as very foolish - not having to do with "were not able to" but with the practical. Can you imagine the chaos that might have created?
Insofar as people wanting to do what they would do with the abortion issue ~~for many people, facts would not be a deterrent from abortion. We humans cannot always transcend our fears and desires.
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.
Where is "there"? Are you speaking of the health care package here?
The solipsist? How does one even wrap his/her brain around that kind of thinking? How could a solipsist be correct or even "see" anything which involves other people or history in the making? I wonder what creates the solipsist's mind? A lonely solitary upbringing - a compensation for not having ever been "seen" or known except by him/-her self. A pathological ego? Poor psychology lol.
On the other hand how do we go about demonstrating whether Obama or Trump are being more reasonable regarding health care in America?
By showing the middle path and the positives and negatives of both. They do both have them. We can't really know Trump's true intent but he does seem to want to rule this country as he did his business if in fact he did rule his business like a dictator of sorts. He likes to have his own way but I'm pretty sure that i may be biased somewhat but how far from the truth..................
Which of the plans reflects a more virtuous approach to healthcare?
Virtuous? You mean a truer reality? I like the word "practical" better?
In order to even contemplate the answer to this, we would have to know exactly what Trump's plans are, what they actually consist of, no? Promises mean nothing. Saying this and that means nothing. We don't even know what this and that are, in the final analysis. Putting his money where his mouth is is a beginning. There's that "in hindsight" again.
I take him with a grain of salt. His behavior has taught me to be skeptical of him. lol
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.
This is true. Sir Arthur Kent said: The course of human history is determined, not by what happens in the skies, but by what takes place in our hearts.
As Shakespeare said: "All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances...."
History is going to unfold as it wills and as we will it. All that we can do is to remember that we can still be as self-determined as we wish to be and then just - Damn the Torpedoes! lol
Arcturus Descending: Have you come to any conclusion about WHY they are not entangled in it?
Yes, it revolves [by and large] around this:
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".
The above reminds me of a religious experience and difficult to break away from...too difficult and uncomfortable to begin to question and to doubt one's own beliefs/perspectives/interconnections. I'll use your word - they become "embedded" in the brain, difficult patterns of thought to break out of. ..difficult to take "The Road Not Taken" (Frost) ....
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
The world of either/or is [reasonably] true for all of us --- however much we might come into conflict regarding what it is.
As an example?
Iam wrote: It should raise a red flag! It basically revolves around the assumption that in a Godless universe human behaviors are "beyond good and evil".
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.
Iam wrote: 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?
That was probably a rhetorical question, right?
It's also a difficult one to answer ~ honestly. I think that we can get lost in a sea of insanity. We can lose our self in this turbulent sea. We would like to believe that, no matter what, we hopefully would remain rational and humane, because we seem to know ourselves so well. But I think that since there is so much inter-connectedness, so many influences, the negative, the pathological, can occur. We can become like viruses to one another, if we are not vigilant as to our weaknesses and flaws, how inhumane we can become under a particular set of circumstances, at the drop of a dime. This is why it is important to really try to know ourselves, not who we would like to be, but our true selves, every good and horrible/grotesque aspect of ourselves. Then we may hopefully have a good chance of remaining "rational and humane".
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.
True. I wonder what it which allows these people to NOT see entanglements? What kind of people are they.
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'm getting a headache reading it. lol
I'll just say separation of church and state. Only kidding.
Maybe that's one of the questions which have no answers, at least the way in which it is worded, or you have to say that it just depends on a multitude of things.
Your question is like putting a few pieces of a puzzle together and seeing the whole picture. We can't see into the future. The only answer we can give is that which is subjective and meaningful to our own selves.
"Arcturus Descending"]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?...
Iam wroter: 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 pictureThe real world in other words.
Well, what would happen would necessarily depend on who the two individuals are and how open they are to re-thinking their subjective truths, how fearless they are in stepping out on that limb and being wrong or less right.
Anyway, it is true that one of them may be much closer to the truth than the other.
But why would it have to be Either Or? Would it be unreasonable or illogical to think that both could be right in their own way?
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.
True. This is why we have to try to learn to balance THAT with the other side of the coin.
AD: 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?
Iam wrote: Yet many on the other side insist that "who in their right mind would sanction the state taking the life of a citizen".
Yet these people do not see the life of the child which was taken in such a horrible way? That so-called citizen made his albeit unconscious choice to give up his life when he took another life in such a way. Choices have consequences.
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.
So the compassion which we could feel for them would exonerate the rapist/murderer? And what of the compassion that these loved ones have for the child who will not grow up, who died a horrible death? I know the that law is not always logical but how illogical is it? I realize that remembering that child might not take away their pain but it can make more sense of why HE had to die even though they can't embrace that thought. There are some mothers who would only think of their rapist/murdering sons and not of the life of that child.
You must think of me as Ivan the Terrible by now.
On another note though, if during discovery it came to be revealed that this man as a child was continually physically and sexually abused, I could, if I was able to think only of the man as a child, and how he became such a predator, opt for him to spend the rest of his life in prison ~ the rest of his life! ~ and not get the lethal injection.
On the other hand, if it was revealed through DNA that he also committed other rape and murder acts but was never caught, despite his childhood, I would opt for the injection.
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 would take a great many arguments. We all think with different minds. I don't suppose the argument or issues WOULD go away.
“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
Iam: 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
I wouldn't say NEVER between a good and an evil. Insofar as this scenario goes, I don't look upon the life of a rapist murderer as a rival good or some kind of conflicting good so I don't at all think of his death by capital punishment as an evil at all - not when considering all that that child experienced as she was being raped and murdered.
Don't you think that the punishment must fit the crime? As a Mom, I may be biased but had I never become a Mom, I still can't see myself as having any other recourse but what i said.
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.
But there are times, when it is a matter of plain justice and balance, logic, not simply dasein. I'm not saying that I believe in "an eye for an eye" because I don't (at least I don't think I don't - all things must be measured) and when you consider it, a quick needle in the arm or however it is done, does not compare to the living hell which that child went through...so one can't even call it an eye for an eye.
.... 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".
Isn't the "good" to be measured according to results and consequences? 6 million Jews were murdered during the holocaust. Are they simply to be collateral damage for some so-called good which came out of it? How could we even justify that?
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.
Will those philosophies ever really go away? All one can do is to relate to others by discussion individually and to try to chip away at their beliefs/perspectives, putting holes in them, getting in some light (our light) if they are even willing to listen. Will one succeed? That would depend on how deeply those attitudes are buried in their depths.
But do we not try?
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.
That would be some Magnum opus. Have you began that writing as of yet?
But you can't say that nothing has been achieved insofar as "serious philosophers" diving into the above, can you" Maybe even a great deal...