Cite some examples from your own life in making this distinction.
Instead, from my frame of mind, it is straight back up into the clouds…
Well, that doesn’t really work for me, but most people when applying their morals to the behavior of others consider the rationality of a choice to be insufficient as a criterion. In fact there can be many rational choices - which means one looks at the situation and reasons one’s way to consquences and chooses according to one’s desire, perhaps - but often only one moral one.
Insufficient in regard to what set of circumstances? And how might a moral nihilist, a moral objectivist, a Christian or a Buddhist describe their own reactions as more or less sufficient given that set of circumstances?
The coronavirus for example. If the rationality of any particular choice is insufficient as a criterion for judging the behavior of others, what might be more sufficient? Or sufficient enough. And if the assessments here come into conflict, what then?
From my point of view, “I” here is either more or less “fractured and fragmented” in any context in which value judgments clash.
In other words…
Instead, there are any number of circumstantial contexts in which William Barrett’s “rival goods” present themselves. One side cites what they construe to be reasonable arguments for choosing one set of behaviors in reacting to the coronavirus, while another side cites what they construe to be more reasonable arguments. Or the most reasonable arguments of all.
Well, there you go. You obviously see the answer to your own questions and should be agreeing with Phyllo instead of appealing to the authority - and not well - of some dead philosophers.
I am still entirely unclear as to how Phyllo manages to intertwine objective morality and God in his reactions to the behaviors of those who also intertwine objective morality and God but come up with completely conflicted sets of behaviors that are deemed to be either right or wrong.
How is he not fractured and fragmented here as “I” am? How is this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…not applicable to him?
Or not applicable to you.
That’s all I can really do here is to continue to probe the arguments of those who don’t think like I do.
You obviously know yourself that different moral conclusions and behaviors can be arrived rationally by different people. Why? Because the moral axioms (at least) are different. Something is not moral simply because it was arrived at via rationality to MOST people. You also have to have the right values.
Yes, but the moral objectivists subsume rationality along with everything else in one or another God, political ideology, or deontological bent. MOST people don’t think these things through as “I” do. MOST people aren’t stumbling around juggling their fractured and fragmented selves.
So you’re incredulity in the face of Phyllo’s pointing this out is not only contradicted by what you write and have written thousands of times but does not fit what people beleive out there.
It makes no sense to conflate rationality and morality when referring to most people. And that’s not a dig at most people. It’s just pointing out the obvious.
We’ll need a context, of course.
Again, a discussion regarding how we react to a particular set of conflicting behaviors in a particular situation. Then as my points unfold you can note specifically when I do these things.