That a particular cat exists and that a particular person has a relationship with that cat is in fact true or it is not. Now, sure, technically serious philosophers can squabble over whether this demonstrable fact is an objective truth or a universal truth.
But, for most of us, the fact that it can be demonstrated to be true works fine. For example, Miley Cyrus exists. She owns a “fluffy white kitty Shanti Om Bb”. Does that qualify as an objective truth? a universal truth?
Are there in turn things that she can do or not do with this cat that qualify – objectively? universally? – as immoral behavior.
How would an ethicist go about demonstrating it?
If, for whatever personal reason, someone abuses or kills a cat, are philosophers able to establish this as either objectively immoral or universally immoral?
In a No God world?
In other words, if someone agrees with you regarding the correct course of action here, they are being logical and rational.
Trust me, I get that part. Just as if someone agrees with you in regard to abortion or Communism they are being logical and rational. They are “one of us”.
A classic example of how the objectivist mind needs to see everything in terms of stark contractions. Either/or.
No, what I do is to explore human morality as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.
No, what preoccupies me from time to time, is the fact that oblivion is right around the corner. I wonder what is to become of “I” when I die. I don’t want it to revolve around the abyss that is nothingness; and, to the best of my knowledge, God and religion are the only andidotes.
No, an “I” that is fractured and fragmented only in regard to conflicting goods derived from dasein; and an “I” that over the years has embraced many conflicting objectivist moral narrative and political agendas.
And on and on and from my end too.
For each accusation, he states it as though the manner in which he construes me reflects not just another existential contraption embedded in his own subjective rendition of “I”, but as though this captures me in a manner in which all rational men and women are are obligated to in turn.
Meanwhile, he is still on track to go all the way to the grave convinced that how he views things like Communism and abortion is in sync with how he views things like objective morality and God.
And I’m still thinking how comforting and consoling that must feel.
Okay, and on your part: “Girl owns cat” and a sudden jump to a bunch of answers about morality.
Rooted somehow in moral objectivism and God.
Note to others:
Let him provide us with the steps, method, process, tools, analysis and arguments he used to reach those answers.
I do make an argument regarding that crucial distinction between facts able to be accumulated about cats and the people that own them, and our reaction to those who [for whatever personal reason] choose to abuse or kill them.
It’s embedded throughout the points I raise in my signature threads.
Yes, for someone who thinks there is no way, that he knows of, to resolve disputes over values, he hasn’t the slightest concern about turning threads dealing with what other people value into threads that (SHOULD) deal with what he values. And if they don’t, he gives them pejorative labels, and then goes on hijacking. It’s trolling, and he got happy when you gave him arguments he is very comfortable dealing with since they allow him to repeat himself.
Fine. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves which seems more reasonable. And then the extent to which reason of this sort reflects [technically] a universal truth.
Indeed, and this is as close as I have come to understanding it:
On the other hand, talk about an existential contraption!!
In that case, note a particular post of mine that best exemplfies this in regard to examining “universal truth” on this thread.
What exactly are you saying here about “how” I post?
After all, from my point of view, those points have everything to do with my philosophy.
And, it seems to me, how I am posting them is by way of examining determinism, the ontology of existentence and “I” in the is/ought world re the actual points I make about them in my posts.
No, I think that what perturbs you most are the arguments that I make. The closer I come to convincing you that they may well be applicable to you, the more perturbed you get.
If, for no other reason, that has been my experience with objectivists of your ilk going back to long ago.
In any event, as Gib pointed out, you’ve been going after me for years now. You keeping huffing and puffing about me, yet continue to respond to my posts.
You know what they say. If you’re down in a hole [philosophically or otherwise] stop digging.
Only that’s not really an option for me. “I” am the hole.
Note top others
He calls ‘objectivists’ anyone who thinks his own perspective is superior to another.
The only acceptable answer is we:
We are all equally ignorant - replacing the Abrahamic ‘we are all equally sinful’ or the Marxist ‘we are all equally poor’ (or ought to be so) - and we must stop fighting and collectively come to mutually beneficial compromises.
This is the Utopia he promotes with nihilism
He chips away at confidence, cultivating - he imagines - uncertainty so as to produce a surrender to the collective project.
His psychology is based on his own loss of trust in his own senses and judgments. He wants to make this universal.