But she is still the one making that assessment! And from my point of view that assessment is then rooted in dasein. In other words, if she was assessing whether or not she was in fact pregnant, old or young, there are ways to determine this objectively. She either is or is not pregnant. But how, as she gets older, is she able to assess objectively whether she has gotten better at identifying whether in the eyes of God aborting the baby is either right or wrong?
How, as we get older pertaining to the world of is/ought, are we not just taking subjective leaps of faith to one point of view or another?
To wit:
Which of their “improved” frames of mind is now more in sync with what is actually right thing to do? And how do they note the manner in which I probe these conflicts – re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – reflects a less reasonable set of assumptions?
But why is improvement only impossible when it comes to identity and value judgements while it remains possible for everything else?
Because those who embrace a pro-life frame of mind insist that one only “improves” their assessment/evaluation of abortion when they come to think as they do. The same regarding the pro-choice folks.
But to assess whether one is pregnant and then chooses either to abort the baby or to give birth, is [in most cases] able to be ascertained objectively. We don’t need God to tell is if someone is pregnant, or if someone does choose to give birth to the baby.
It only gets tricky here if someone is pregnant, induces an abortion to kill the baby, but tells no one about it. Here there is an objective truth but sans God it is a truth known only by the woman herself.
So, if abortion is illegal where she lives, she gets away with it. But, with God, there is no such escape, right? Why on earth do you suppose we need to invent Gods here?
In other words, my point of view revolves around the assumption that, with respect to playing tennis or musical accomplishment and reading comprehension, there are ways to actually test a word like “improvement”.
Similarly, a doctor is able to learn how to improve her skills when it comes to performing an abortion. But how is the ethicist evaluated in turn regarding her skills in judging the morality of doing so?
You practice playing a musical instrument but you get hit by a bus on the way to the concert where you will demonstrate your skill. Does that mean that you never improved?
Up until the bus hits you, you were either able to demonstrate to others that your skills had improved or you were not. But again this is often rooted in subjective frames of mind. A professional musician may be able to tell if you had improved whereas one with no background or education in music may not.
Then we get into those squabbles about whether it can proven that the music of Philip Glass is better than the music of Justin Bieber. Now, surely, it can be demonstrated that the music of Philip Glass is more sophisticated than the music of Justin Bieber. But how do we then demonstrate definitively that rational folks are obligated to prefer the music of Philip Glass?
It’s that distinction between noting the ingredients of a chocolate milkshake are different from the ingredients of a strawberry shortcake, and making the claim that the chocolate milkshake tastes better than strawberry shortcake.
Says who?
People say that there is such a thing as wisdom. That’s some kind of ability to judge/evaluate effectively. People seem to be able to detect wisdom. But you say that there is no such thing.
No, I am suggesting that with respect to a belief in God [on this thread] there are conflicting arguments regarding that which constitutes wise behaviors on this side of the grave and that which constitutes a wise assessment of one’s fate on the other side of the grave.
Then I ask folks like you to assess this as it relates to your own behaviors.
Which then brings us back to this:
[b]Me:
What “here and now” do you believe your own fate to be “beyond”? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind – the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true “in your head”? What is to be their own fate?
You:
I don’t know how many times I’m supposed to say “I don’t know”, “It’s not my decision”, “It’s not under my control”.[/b]
We are “stuck” in other words.
If you present a situation to several people and ask them to evaluate it … it seems possible to tell when some of them are biased, some of them are bullshitting and some have an understanding of it. But you’re saying that even the outright bullshitters are not wrong in any way. How can that be the case?
What is the context? If several people are discussing the relationship between abortion and God, how would we go about determining who is biased, who has the correct understanding of it, who is just bullshitting us?
To understand whether someone is just bullshitting us you would need to be privy to his intention and motivation. You would have to either be inside his head at the time or know him well enough to tell that he is just bullshitting us.
Right?
And please note an example of how you imagine that I might go down some hypothetical path here. I’m not sure what you are getting at.
If someone proposes discussing a “real world” example, you flood them with questions about details - "which context? which point of view? "
I tried to discuss a violent purse-snatching with you … immediately you hid in superfluous details.
Refresh my memory please. If someone chooses to attack a woman, beat her and steal her purse, he may well be able to rationalize it by insisting that, in a Godless universe, right and wrong revolves entirely around that which he perceives as “self-gratification”. He shifts his concern then from “is it okay to do this” to “how do I make sure I am not caught doing this”.
So, where is the philosophical argument able to demonstrate that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational in a Godless universe. Again, that’s why the gods need to be invented!
God sees all, knows all. God embodies Divine Justice. And, so, the parts before and after the grave are always covered.
What are you saying other than “you guys can’t talk me out of this, but let’s waste some time talking about it”?
Well, I could point out all of the times in the past when I had insisted that others could not talk be out of any number of objectivist frames of mind – and then did – but I’m sure you’d just scoff at it.