back to the beginning: morality

I don’t think it is your point. I make the distinction between the truths and my use of truths to make decisions, whereas you repeatedly deny the existence of those truths. You keep referring to “my truth” and “hammering” the truth to suit myself. We fundamentally disagree on that point.

You keep saying this about me, but I don’t say that “all rational men and women will be obligated” to think about it one way. That’s just silly.

I also don’t say that in any disagreement, my opponents are right based on their assumptions and I am right based on my assumptions. That’s also silly. Their assumptions may be stupid and/or logic may be stupid. The same may be true of my assumption and/or my logic. Somebody could be wrong.

You’re bouncing from one extreme to another.

You seem to care about that much more than I do.

Well isn’t that general and abstract.

I make a personal claim to give due respect to truth and in reply you refer to some anonymous “folks” who allegedly do exactly the same things.

Bring forth an actual person so that we can examine his actions.

Well here again, you deny that I can know a truth. Can I know about the secret police and their actions? Apparently not.

And note that you are not saying that my evaluation of secret police actions is based on dasein and therefore skewed in a particular direction. You’re saying that I can’t even know historical facts.

I guess that you know what I think and do better than I know it myself. :open_mouth:

Do you want me to make a specific claim?

There is truth about historical events. Right?
Stalin taking control, Ukrainian famine-genocide, show trials, purges, etc.

Those truths are basis for an evaluation of communism. How can they not be?

Yeah, that’s your rendition of it. And, in embracing it, you project [to me] as someone basically arguing that anyone who does not think and feel exactly the same way is [must be] wrong.

How can they not be when you are so fiercely certain that you are right? It’s either this or one or another variation of, “they’re right from their side, we’re right from ours.”

Then those on both sides [all sides] yank out sets of historical facts to bolster their claims. And then argue heatedly over what either was or was not “appropriate”.

Same thing regarding those who detest capitalism.

On the contrary, my argument revolves more around the assumption that with respect to value judgments relating to such things as abortion and Communism, many sides are able to construct arguments which can be construed as reasonable given a particular set of assumptions about the human condition.

If, for example, human interactions are said to revolve more around “we” than “me”, then one or another rendition of socialism seems more reasonable. Unless, of course it is the other way around. Then, sure capitalism makes more sense.

So, how do philosophers, ethicists and political scientists finally pin that down? Given how the history of human interactions to date is bursting at the seams with examples of both points of departure.

Yeah, that’s how the objectivists think about these things. It makes no difference what the new revolutionaries do because the damn thing is inherently broken. And they have the arguments to prove it.

Note to others: What does this tell you about the sophistication of his thinking here?

I am basically in agreement here. And that is because Marxism/socialism/Communism are objectivist frames of mind that can never be in sync with the manner in which I construe human interactions embedded existentially [and far more precariously] in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But how do I go about demonstrating that to those hell-bent on believing in that which enables them to ground “I” in the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”? It’s the secular equivalent of convincing the religious that there is no God. They simply have too much “comfort and consolation” invested in Him.

No existential holes for them!

Not in a world where the significant changes embraced by some are construed as horrible and terrible by others.

In any event, that is a world embedded in democracy and the rule of law. And that in my view is a world that eschews both “might makes right” and “right makes might”.

Though there is still the part where those with the most wealth and power get to configure the actual existential parameters of this “best of all possible worlds”.

No, I’m suggesting that those convinced that their revolution reflects [historically] the next “kingdom of ends”, will rationalize virually any behaviors in order to sustain the kingdom.

And then there are the moral nihilists who basically skip all that right and wrong stuff and cut to the chase: what’s in it for me?

You continue to misunderstand me. The Communists and the capitalists in the objectivist camps are generally authoritarians. The evils of the other side necessarily go away if the revolution is successful. In other words, the revolution [in a Hegelian sense] reflects “the final synthesis”. It’s just a matter of whether this synthesis is embedded more in materialism, idealism, or God.

Notice how this :

contrasts with this:

In the latter, there is some sort of “reasonable arguments” - some sort of valid process.

In the former, there are two sides simply insisting that they are correct based on (I guess) what they want to be true - no process involved. No process is examined for validity.

You do that sort of shifting from one position to the other all the time in your responses.

As if it can’t be inherently broken.

But sure, try it again and kill a few more millions.

Marx wasn’t actually studying a communist society and reporting the results. Right? He was proposing that a society ought to work in a certain way. It’s what he thought a “good” society would be like.
And sure, he saw some of the evils of capitalism and he wanted to avoid them. But was his solution adequate or correct?

And notice that you seem to be suggesting that Marx’s writings are not just existential contraptions “in his head”. Which would be your accusation towards me and others if we had written his stuff.

Well, we’re talking about murder and enslavement and a police state, etc.

Too general and abstract. I invite you to bring it down to earth.

That is only because, unlike me, you are still convinced that the truth – the whole truth – embedded in “Communism: right or wrong?” is enscounced in the existence of moral and political facts that some are in sync with while others are not. My point is that the arguments from both sides are reasonable given the particular assumptions/premises made about the human condition. Embedded out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially.

In other words:

From my perspective this is basically a distinction without a difference. If folks don’t think about Communism as you do it is either because they are right to think about it as they do from their side, or because their assumptions and logic are “stupid”.

Okay, how then do the philosophers, ethicists and political scientists go about determining who is in fact wrong here? What does that argument sound like? Especially given that rules of behavior must be enacted in any given community either facilitating or retarding the actual political reality of Communism.

I’m the one down in the hole. I’m the one who is fractured and fragmented. I’m the one on the precipice of oblivion.

Of course I care about it! Just as you are keenly intent on not having me yank you down into the hole with me.

I mean, come on, look what the fuck is at stake here!!

Indeed, and if we bring it all down to earth pertaining to a particular conflicting good in a particular context, I can describe the manner in which I am down in that hole fractured and fragmented.

While you are still able to congeal your “self” into a frame of mind that is nothing like this at all.

Right?

Huh? I merely point out obvious: that you have your “personal claim” regarding the truth about Communism, while others, utterly in conflict with you, have theirs.

Isn’t that in fact the truth regarding those on all sides of all the moral and political conflagrations that rend us?

“Due respect to the truth”? Nope, nothing subjective and subjunctive about that.

Okay, how about Don Trump? Note something that he does over the next few days and we can commence a discussion/debate regarding the extent to which we believe it either is or is not “the right thing to do”.

My guess: the “basis for evaluation” will revolve around the manner in which you come to interpret the significance of the facts.

You can’t even acknowledge a simple truth like “The secret police murdered X number of people” and therefore that counts as part of the argument against communism.

I don’t know how many times I have repeated myself now.

There are assumptions which are wrong, assumptions which may be wrong or right (unclear), and assumptions which are right.

The same is true for logic.

That produces 9 possible end states in a truth table.

So, no. It’s not a distinction without a difference.

I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and yet I don’t care if oblivion is on the other side.

“keenly intent” is your fantasy assessment.

Go ahead, bring it down to earth. You haven’t done it even once. Let’s see if you can.

I put my ass on the line here but all you can do is bring up some nameless, faceless “others” who according to you “do the same” as me. Prove that they “do the same”.

Show that I don’t respect the truth.

You make a lot of objective claims about me.

Okay, bring Donald Trump here so that he can make his claims and we can discuss them with him.

That way we can make some progress and maybe get at some truth and lies.

Aren’t Trump’s claims clear enough in recorded videos? Pick a clip of Trump stating one of his objectives and why? Should be simple enough to do.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p78JMn2na9A[/youtube]
Well boys, here’s one to get you started.

Iambig is more than willing to discuss other people … what Iambig thinks about their motivations and what he thinks they are saying.

So I’m sure he is willing to discuss Trump with you.

I’m interested hearing what Trump has to say for himself when he is actually confronted by questions from me. I’m not interested in discussing him or a video of him.

Am I like Trump? Iambig says that I am. So bring on Trump so I can see if it’s true.

Yes, you may well be pointing out something important here that I keep missing. But I do keep missing it.

Someone can attack Communism convinced that their argument reflects either the best assessment of it, or the only possible rational assessment that there is of it.

Or they can surmise that here and now their argument is thought by them to be the best [using whatever “process” appeals to them], but acknowledging that this is only because they start with certain assumptions about human interactions. That, for example, as the Ayn Rand Objectivists insist, “I” is the fundamental building block in human relationships. But then others argue that “we” is more plausable. They champion a “collectivist” approach to the community they live in. And, among them, are those who incorporate Marx and Engels into their analysis. They embrace Communism as “scientifically” the final synthesis in the material evolution of political economy.

So, what “shifting” do you see here?

I’m not arguing that it isn’t inherently broken. I’m suggesting instead that many who insist that it is, are not willing to sufficiently explore the manner in which I approach these value judgments as embodied existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Instead, they take that existential leap to a set of political prejudices based on the assumption that their own understanding of the Gulags and the political repression can only be understood if they grasp the extent to which Communism is inherently broken. That’s their default frame of mind in examining anything relating to it.

Just as, one way or another, the Libertarians and Objectivists are able to rationalize all of the terrible things that those opposed to capitalism can point out. It’s just “human nature”. Or it’s not real capitalism. Or human interactions necessarily [genetically] revolve around survival of the fittest.

And, again, that’s before we get to all of those [the moral nihilists] who care only about what capitalism can do for them.

More to the point, he was extrapolating into the future based on what a “scientific” understanding of political economies from the past – nomadic, hunter and gather, slash and burn, sedentary farming, cultivation, mercantilism etc. – would precipitate. And he was doing it at a time when the horrors embedded in the Industrial Revolution made life a virtual hell for many toiling among “the masses”. It was the best of both worlds. Not only was socialism the next step organically/historically in the evolution of the “means of production” but it created a world in which so many more were imagined to be better off.

His solution [as many point out] was never actually pursued. The socialist revolutions unfolded in nations that were still largely agrarian. There was no industrial base upon which the collectivists could launch their workers revolutions. Instead, the “dictatorship of the proletariet” was hammered into whatever actual substructure was around. And, yes, the rest is history. But it is the moral and political objectivists who insist there is one and only one way in which to understand all of this.

The bottom line is that neither the purist socialists nor the purist capitalists prevailed. Instead, state/crony capitalism has spread around the globe. And the folks who own and operate it are, in going “back to the beginning: morality”, basically insterested only in whatever sustains their own wealth and power.

If you read him, you will note that as a “left-Hegelian”, he was intent on going the materialist route. He attempted to examine the history of political economy to date and extrapolate into the future based on his own interpretion of “dialectical materialism”.

Which, from my point of view, your point of view wants to attribute to Communism being “inherently broken”. These things were never not going to happen. And when others attempt to rationalize what did happen based on the arguments I proposed above, their “process” is inherently flawed too. Why? Because your “process” gets it right. Then around and around we go.

To wit:

Yeah, you argue this. But my suspicion is that only when someone brings everything down to earth in sync with your own assumption that Communism is “inherently broken” will they really be bringing it all down to earth.

Meanwhile, you simply won’t go in the direction that your own value judgments here are reflected more in the need [psychologically] for you to ground “I” in the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

The only point of view here inherently not broken.

And how “comforting and consoling” is that?

Yes, and you will keep repeating it until I acknowledge that this historical fact [and it certainly seems to be one] necessarily demonstrates that Communism is “inherently broken”.

And that, concommitantly, to the extent that others like the dude at Existential Comics argues that, “I bet you can’t name a single socialist country that successfully defended itself from being violently destroyed by the imperialist capitalist powers”, they have inherently miscontrued the true historical nature of the “capitalist juggernaut”.

No, it has nothing to do with that at all. It is all reflected in the objective fact that Communism is inherently flawed.

Whereas everyone knows that capitalism is inherently more virtuous.

Huh?

I believe that there is an abundance of empirical evidence to show that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the Stalin Era resulted in many deaths and much repression. I believe that historically this assumption is probably correct.

But to assume in turn that this necessarily demonstrates that Communism is inherently flawed/broken is basically to argue that only if others unequivocally share your own interpretation of these facts do they truly undertand Communism. The arguments of those who try to construe it all from another perspective we can safely assume are inherently flawed in turn.

And how is that not embedded largely in the manner in which your own particular “I” here is the embodiment of dasein? This is how you came to think about oblivion. Given the sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in that direction. But others [living very different lives] think about it in conflicting ways. Is there a way in which all rational men and women ought to think about it?

And, again, my focus is always on connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and ones perceived fate on the other side of it. Many religious folks will argue that Communists will burn in Hell because the behaviors they choose here and now are derived from an atheistic point of view.

Over and again I note that with respect to issues like Communism and abortion, I deem the arguments made by both sides – by many sides – as reasonable given the initial set of assumptions they make about human interactions. I am tugged in both directions. I am no longer able to convince myself that one frame of mind is in fact more reasonable, more virtuous than the other.

That’s what it means to be down in the hole. At least out in the is/ought world. I’m just still largely perplexed regarding how this all unfolds inside your head when someone challenges your values relating to things like Communism and abortion. In some respects you seem willing to go in the direction of “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine”, while in other respects you get around to things being “inherently flawed/broken”.

And as for the role that God and religion plays in all of this for you, I may as well be discussing the Real God with James Saint.

Okay, how about him insisting that there must be a wall built along the Mexican border. That this reflects the the most rational immigration policy.

Here are some arguments pro and con:

immigration.procon.org/view.ans … nID=000778

Now, my point is that both sides make arguments that are reasonable, given certain assumptions they start out with. I note these conflicting goods and am not able to construct the most reasonable argument of all. Both sides make points that the other side may or may not be able to deflect, but are not able to make entirely go away.

At the same time, I suggest that the values here embodied in any particular “I” are going to be as a result of the sequence of actual experiences they have had with this issue starting with the manner in which they were indoctrinated as children and then flowing out of the experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge they accumulated as more autonomous adults.

[-o< [-o< [-o< Preach it!

Sure, some will feel compelled to describe the manner in which I portray the components of my moral philosophy as “preaching”. As though I am linking them to some obligatory font that others must subscribe to in order to be deemed by me as being reasonable.

Whereas I am more interested in exploring the extent to which others can describe their own conflicted interactions with others in narratives that either reject my own components or indicate to me how the components of their own political prejudices allow them to feel less fractured and fragmented. Or not at all fractured and fragmented.

After all, here, what else is there?

From “Morality: The Final Delusion?” by Richard Garner in Philosophy Now magazine

[b]

[/b]

This is the existential juncture that I more or less root my own rendition of the “hole” I am in. No God and no moral narrative predicated on His existence. But if we explore the natural history of moral narratives in a No God world, we bump into any number of conflicting assumptions about any number of conflicting goods. Just as one must believe in the existence of God in order to subscribe to one or another Scripture, one must believe in the existence of morality in order to subscribe to one or another Humanism.

From my perspective, what we call morality is only the “for all practical purposes” necessity to prescribe and proscribe particular “rules of behaviors” in a particular community in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

And then down through the ages this would be predicated on one or another combination of right makes might, might makes right or democracy and the rule of law.

Only I myself can never construe even this assumption as anything other than just another existential contraption. I can’t demonstrate that there is no such thing as morality in a No God world anymore than I can demonstrate that God does not exist for those embedded in a religious community.

Instead, I can only come into places like this and note the arguments of others.

Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine

Albert Filice

It doesn’t necessarily follow that, if morality was objective, everyone would share the same value judgments. The far more important question is, “can morality be demonstrated to be objective such that it necessarily follows that all rational men and women are obligated to behave in such and such a way?”

Or be deemed irrational.

Which then just begs the question, “Is rational behavior the equivalent of moral behavior?”

Which seems to be the bottom line for folks like, say, Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand.

And then the question of where God fits into all of this. For Kant, He would seem to be a vital transending font, for Rand, Reason itself would seem to be enough.

And then, finally, this part:

The “human all too human” complexities built into any one particular historical, cultural and interpersonal context.

The part I basically attribute to dasein. The part where “situational ethics” comes to revolve existentially around the interaction of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods, and the reality of political and economic power.

It is here however that I suggest we take “general description” “intellectual contraptions” like this “down to earth”.

If it was universally accepted that morality was objective it is still possible there could be differences over value judgements :

There may not be universal agreement on the source of the morality [ some might say God - some might say philosophy ]

There may not be universal agreement on which aspects of life would be subject to objective morality
You could not have your entire life subject to it because that would be an impossible ideal to live up to

However even if there was a single universal source for objective morality that absolutely everyone agreed upon there would still be free will
For free will is the enemy of objective morality because it gives human beings the freedom to reject their moral code whenever they want to

A psychologically weak individual would fail in their moral obligations more than a psychologically strong one even if they both shared the same moral code
This demonstrates personal character is every bit as important as a moral code if not more so when it comes to living a good life based on certain principles

Free will is also the reason why there will always be differences of opinion between said human beings on every subject known to them [ not just morality ]

Which is why specific claims that morality is objective given any particular context, or universal regarding all contexts, must be situated in a particular context such that whatever font chosen – God, science, reason, nature etc. – is put to the test.

In other words, with regard to the conflicting goods that do in fact pop up regarding so many human interactions.

After all, if there are differences in regard to value judgments and those value judgements do “for all practical purposes” come into conflict out in the world of actual human interactions, what then?

Eventually, in our modern world, rules of behaviors accepted among a group of people [for whatever reason] need to be reconfigured into laws [in the larger society] such that abiding by them or breaking them bring about various rewards and punishments.

And here there are either demonstrable goods and evils applicable to everyone [re God, reason, science, nature, etc.] or [in my view] individual men and women derive a particular subjective/subjunctive narrative from within extant historical, cultural and/or interpersonal sets of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. Which, in turn, evolve over time given new experiences, relationships, ideas etc., in a world clearly awash in contingency, chance and change.

This, of course, becomes an entirely different context. No free will and morality is like everything else: enthrall to the laws of matter.

There is only the psychological illusion of being responsible for the behaviors we choose. There is only the psychological illusion of being able to hold others responsible for the behaviors that they choose.

Though even this is beyond my capacity to wholly demonstrate. Here we all make our own assumptions. In other words, in not being able to pin down beyond all doubt whether even those assumptions are not in turn compelled by nature.

This sort of thing [in my view] revolves less around being able to pin down behaviors demonstrated rationally and/or morally to be in sync with one or another objective font, and more around the part embedded in enforcement.

And here, yes, human psychology [in an autonomous world], does come into play. Some are just stronger, more assertive and more commanding than others. Similarly, there is the role played by social, political and economic power in any particular context. Being right is one thing, being able to enforce that right, another thing altogether.

Philosopher-kings, for example, the embodiment of right makes might in theory, may be woefully behind the eight-ball when it comes acquiring a police force, or an army or the political/economic wherewithal to command them.

Back again to the Pope and Hitler.

As an absolute concept objective morality is flawed because no human being can live up to such an ideal
The road to self improvement comes through trial and error and making mistakes and learning from them

It is therefore more effective as a bottom up philosophy than a top down one which is how religion usually operates
Although ultimately what matters is not the specific methodology but the willingness to actually want to self improve

Experience makes us better moral beings but mistakes are inevitable so must be accepted while trying to avoid them as much as possible

Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine

Jeanette Lang

What this confronts in my view is that [at times] considerably problematic juncture where “objectivity” understood technically by the serious philosopher meets its “ordinary language” counterpart out in a particular historical, culture and experiential context.

Or, perhaps, the serious philosophers can grapple with it in terms of human sensation and human perception and human conception intertwined in an assessment said to be in sync logically and epistemologically with rational thinking. And then, what, compare that to what actual flesh and blood folks out in a particular world justify as moral or immoral?

Is it in fact possible to transcend space and time existentially in order to establish, first, philosophically and then, secondly, to demonstrate that, for all practical purposes, human sacrifice is objectively immoral?

In other words, once modern men and women are able to be convinced that the Gods of nature [replaced by scientific knowledge] do not have to be appeased through human sacrifice, can they move on to, say, slaughtering the infidels that refuse to worship and adore their own one true denominational God?

Or are philosophers able to establish that at best God is just a name some give to the entirety of the universe itself. God as nature in sync with or not in sync with a teleology that gives meaning and purpose to existence?

Once, historically, it has been accepted by most that human sacrifice is not reasonable, is this the same as demonstrating that it is therefore immoral?

That, in other words, reasonable human beings are obligated to reject it?

A part of me is tugged in that directed, but a part of me is not.

There just does not seem to be a way in which to establish this as an essential truth applicable to all of us.

There is still that part of me that anchors value judgments of this sort in dasein and conflicting goods. Subjective/subjunctive frames of mind ineffably intertwined in contingency, chance and change; and in the possibility of determinism intertwined in all that we do not know about existence itself.

In any particular context, all human behaviors seem able to be rationalized by a particular “I” seeing the world in a way that my own particular “I” does not.

We reach the point where that which we are able to establish as true for all of us [in the either/or world], tumbles over into the parts where we cannot.

Okay, but that still leaves us with establishing “for all practical purposes” those behaviors deemed to be the most ideal for establishing in turn an improved self.

And then through both “trial and error” and “thinking it through” different people arrive at different moral narratives and political agendas. The “concept of morality” meets the “real world” embedded in what I construe to be conflicting goods derived from “I” as dasein interacting with others in a particular world where some have the actual power to enforce that which they deem to be in their own self-interest. Their self here [like mine and yours] no less an existential contraption embedded in an extant world historically, culturally and experientially.

That’s when I tap the serious philosophers on the shoulder and ask, “what then?”

But “what then?” only to the extent they are willing to intertwine their intellectual contraptions here out in a particular context where conflicting goods stubbornly prevail.

Thus when you suggest that…

…my reraction is often, “what on earth do you mean by this?”

In other words, what particular bottom involving what particular behaviors in which there are conflicting renditions of what “self-improvement” actually entails.

Who gets to decide which behaviors are the “mistakes”?

The philosophers?

The mistakes which you make have to be acknowledged by yourself because this is the only way you can actually learn
It is called self improvement because it is exclusively focused upon your own moral advancement and not anyone elses
You might seek guidance or support from others but the ultimate decision to want to improve is only one you can make

Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine

Karl Wray

This, in my view, is an entirely different way in which to approach morality as objective. Sure, it is an objective fact that individuals raised in different historical and cutural contexts, come to embody the value judgments embedded in their time and place. It’s not like – poof! – out of the blue an individual just makes up his or her own only wholly subjective morality.

But these objectivists were no less embedded in an extant historical, cultural and experiential context. Right? They clearly did not themselves just construct a wholly subjective moral narrative out of thin air “in their head”.

Instead, what connects them all is that they rooted their moral and political agendas in one or another transcending font. Thus the individual was expected to follow the leader because the leader was the embodiment of God or one or another rational/scientific political ideology.

What makes morality objective for those like him is the fact that it is never entirely subjective. It is instead always an intersubjective exchange of value judgments in any given community. A consensus is reached regarding the “rules of behavior”. This consensus can then revolve around either right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. Or, in some sets of circumstances, might makes right prevails.

And, besides, wealth and power will always be a factor when it comes to both making and then enforcing the rules.