Note just one particular answer that you provided. And then note how the manner in which I reacted to it was not a proper discussion. How in your view did I ignore the particular feedback that you provided.
The only thing that pops into my head now is Communism. And here it appears that your frame of mind revolves around the assumption that to the extent others do not share your own existential reaction to it, they are discussing it improperly.
Here and now [philosophically] I construe myself to be one of Richard Rorty’s “ironists”.
I don’t know what that means “down to earth” or “on the ground” out of the clouds.
How does an “ironist” solve or even begin to approach philosophical problems/questions? Or more generally, how does he approach life’s problems?
An ironist suggests that with regard to value judgments there appear to be conflicting goods embedded in conflicting moral narratives able to make reasonable arguments based on a conflicting set of assumptions/premises.
Thus in my “abortion trajectory” above, I note that Mary posed arguments she believed justified her aborting her fetus. While John posed arguments he believed justified bringing it to term.
Then what? How would one go about discussing this “properly”?
And how might God and religion factor into any possible [realistic] resolution?
Here at ILP [over and again] we have any number of moral, political and religious “positions” articulated by liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists, that an ironist might deem resonable. Can philosophers then concoct an argument/assessment that is demonstrated [epistemologically] to be the optimal frame of mind, precipitating the optimal set of behaviors?
Maybe. But I am not now privy to it. Are you?
To wit:
You choose the context, you choose the behaviors, you choose the conflicting goods.
Give me an example of what that discussion would look like.
Are you kidding? We come upon them all the time here. For example, something happens in the news. Like, say, Trump’s narrative regarding immigrants from Mexico. The wall. The Dreamers.
My frame of mind here is that both the liberals and the conservatives are able to pose a political agenda that they are able to articulate rationally. They both make points the other side can’t just make go away.
Here for example: immigration.procon.org/
Now, there was once a time in my life when my reaction to issues such as this was as an objectivist. Either in a God or a No God world. My frame of mind then reflected the optimal point of view. Whether as a Christian or a Marxist-Leninist or a Trotskyist or a democratic socialist or a social democrat. There was a right and a wrong way to look at it. And you were either one of us or one of them.
Now, however, I have come to recognize the extent to which my shifting and evolving political prejudices over the years are rooted [existentially: historically, culturally, experientially] in daseins who have come to embody conflicting goods in a “real world” where, ultimately, what counts is either possessing or not possessing the political power to make your own moral agenda, among other things, the “law of the land”.
You don’t distinguish between good and bad, better and worse, progress and regress. You don’t accept the usefulness of any philosophical methods or approaches.
This is simply preposterous. I merely suggest that in the is/ought world, such distinctions revolve around “existential contraptions” rooted in the components of moral nihilism. Or, rather, in the manner in which “here and now” I have to construe the meaning of that.
All I insist is that for those who object [either in a God or a No God world] we bring the discussion out into the world of clearly recognizable conflicting human interactions we are all likely to be familiar with.
Though, sure, there is always the possibility that we cannot come to agree on what exactly that entails.