Sure, that’s more or less what I do. But that doesn’t make the consequences any less the product of a particular political prejudice/leap embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
It doesn’t make my dilemma go away. Why? Because, given another set of experiences, I might have leaped in the opposite direction. And, whatever direction I do leap [existentially], there are always going to be arguments able to persuade others not to.
We’re on the same page here. I agree. It’s just that, for me, nothing of what I note above really goes away. It’s not like any particular individual can think through the question “should I rob this bank?” and come up with a moral narrative that settles it. At best she can come to believe that her own narrative is the most reasonable. And then in a world of contingency, chance and change, her experiences, relationships, sources of information etc., evolve/devolve and she comes to think differently about it.
I’m still back to grappling with my own intellectual contraption: That in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion, there is no way [philosophically or otherwise] to know how one ought to live.
Unless of course there is and I am just not privy to it here and now.
True, but when we choose to live among others there are going to be “rules of behavior”. We may ultimately be at a loss to understand why we do what we do but there are clearly going to be dots to connect between that and the historical, cultural and experiental parameters of the actual lives that we live out in a particular world.
I just put my own “dasein, conflicting goods, political economy” spin on that. And then go out looking for folks able to convince me that I’m full of shit.