But my point always revolves around making that crucial distinction between our reactions to those killed given what we are able to garner objectively about the either/or world, and our reactions given the considerably more problematic components of the is/ought world.
And here God is often invoked. If God is in the picture then those who believe in Him are able to think themselves into believing that if their moral reaction to the killing is in Sync with God, then this allows them to insist in turn that others are either “one of us” or “one of them”.
Over and over and over again, I seem able to reduce you down to arguing that I am arguing something that I am not arguing at all.
I don’t dismiss all of the points raised by others as existing only in their heads. I ask them to connect the dots between what they do believe is true in their heads here and now to an argument in which an attempt is made to convince others that they too ought to believe it is true. Why? Because it can be demonstrated in turn that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe that it is true.
Then it is just a matter of choosing a particular set of behaviors in a particular context and attempting to differentiate that which does appear to be true for all of us and that which seems more invested in particular subjective/subjunctive opinions.
And they don’t call them “personal opinions” for nothing.
You set yourself up as the judge on whether the dots have been connected or not.
You set yourself up as the judge on whether something has been demonstrated or not.
You set yourself up as the judge on whether a particular context has been set up and presented and whether it is being discussed substantively.
Obviously: I and only I am able to react to what others tells me. I am either convinced that the manner in which they connect the dots is more reasonable then the manner in which I do or I am not.
That’s my whole point here with regards to the is/ought world! In the either/or world there often is just one way in which the dots can be connected. The components of this computer are either in sync with access to the internet or they are not. If the computer and my internet provider are functioning properly then they are and, if not, then they are not.
And that is rather easily demonstrated substantively. After all, here I am.
But suppose the discussion/debate shifts to the arguments that surround “net neutrality”. How should all of the dots be connected here? How is that demonstrated substantively?
Instead, we get this: vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
Both sides are able to make reasonable arguments given the initial set of assumptions provided.
You tell me: What is the optimal or the only truly rational argument that can be made here using the tools of philosophy?
And astonishingly, nobody manages to meet your expectations. Your reasons amount to little more than that “you are not convinced”.
This clearly revolves around my attempts to convince others that, given the extent to which being down in my hole is a truly grim, glum place to be, I am genuinely in search of arguments that might succeed in yanking me up out of it.
And, then, given the extent to which oblivion appalls me, are those of a religious bent able to convince me that immortality and salvation are not just all in their head.
Sure, if you are convinced this all just some sort of game that I am playing [as, say, a polemicist waiting for godot] you can think yourself into believing anything you want about me. And how on earth would I ever convince you otherwise? That’s just the nature of the human condition. We can never truly be inside the head of another. We can never truly be certain about what to believe regarding his or her motivations and intentions. I merely speculate that this is in turn profoundly problematic regarding our own efforts to.
Is there something that can be discussed without getting your standard responses?
Right, like you don’t have a set of your own.