My challenge:
Okay, but how is any of this really related to my own challenge above?
To get or not to get your child vaccinated is a controversial issue today. It revolves around yet another set of “conflicting goods”: vaccines.procon.org/
So what becomes crucial here is the extent to which either side is or is not able to demonstrate that their own arguments are more solidly embedded in what can be established as “the facts”.
But suppose the law requires certain vaccinations and certain parents refuse to do it. Ought the government be empowered to force them to?
Or what of those religious fundamentalists who refuse to take their children to doctors or hospitals? Again, ought the government be empowered to force them to?
How do “prime logos” and “non sero sum” factor into something like this?
We can imagine lots of things. But to what extent are we able to demonstrate [re vaccination, abortion, animal rights, gun control etc.] that what we imagine is true is in fact true for all reasonable men and women?
And then to what extent are we able to demonstrate that what we believe is rational is synonymous with what we believe is virtuous? How are our moral narratives and political agendas not “existential contraptions” here?
And, again, lets aim the discussion at a particular context involving a particular set of conflicting goods.
No, as matter of fact, we don’t all know this. Instead, different people in different contexts see different things as evil. We then need to focus the discussion in on particular realities construed from particular points of view either able to be or not able to be demonstrated as rational or virtuous.