My point though revolves around the intersection of rational thought and moral behavior. Out in the world of actual human interactions in conflict.
Are folks like Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, you and I able to construct the optimal or the only rational argument such that human interactions embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially are able to be determined as constituting “progressive” behavior in regards to chattel slavery, abortion, gender roles, separation of church and state, just war or any other well known and much discussed/debated “conflicting goods”?
Now, I’m not arguing that this can’t be done. I’m only suggesting that each of us as individuals construct and reconstruct particular arguments embedded in the manner in which my “I” construes the meaning of dasein above.
There either are or are not limitations imposed on the tools of philosophy once the discussion shifts from the either/or world to the is/ought world.
Yet even here I acknowledge that my own narrative is no less an existential contraption. That, in other words, in order for “I” to be fully cognizant of the moral obligation of rational men and women, “I” must have an objective understanding of Existence itself. And to be able to note that re the is/ought world truths can be demonstrated in much the same manner that they can re the either/or world.
I merely insist that such demonstrations be brought down out of the scholastic clouds and situated in particular contexts we might all be familiar with.
So, sure give it a go:
Note how “it would be more efficient to use Heidegger’s thesis as a base” for doing so.
To wit:
Let’s suppose I don’t understand precisely what Heidegger’s view is here. Let’s suppoose that you [or others] do. Okay, take that view and situate it out in the world of conflicting goods. Illustrate the text by noting the manner in which Heidegger actually did defend one set of behaviors rather than another in the course of noting his own particular conflicting interactions with others.
Or [when push comes to shove] was Martin in turn just one more of Durant’s “epistemologists”.
Let’s explore his take on Dasein as it might be relevant to, say, Adolph Hitler’s moral and political agenda.
Again, what disturbs the objectivists regarding my own narrative here is that while they insist fascism either is or is not a rational frame of mind, I speculate that it can only ever be a particular existential contraption rooted in a particular set of political prejudices rooted in a particular set of assumptions regarding the “human condition”.
It is always that they know what “the truth” is here, not whatever the truth may or may not be argued to be, that propels the psychology of objectivism.
More than anything they need to keep from tumbling down into the hole that I am in re human morality in a No God world.
No God, no objective morality. So, sure, all along the moral/philosophical/political spectrum it has to be invented.
Human history is veritably bursting at the seams with them, right?!
The point [mine] isn’t whether I understand or misunderstand Heidegger’s philosophy, but the extent to which that philosophy [correctly understood] can be demonstrated/defended as entirely in sync with the moral obligations of rational human beings.
That’s my challenge.