back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:40 pm

phyllo wrote:
I make a personal evaluation that those sort of things are not acceptable. It's my personal line in the sand.



But that's my point.
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 are considerably more convinced that your take on Communism is much, much closer to whatever all rational men and women will be obligated to think about it if, one day, philosophers and ethicists and political scientists actually do pin this all down.
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.
The day you'll be able to say, "see, I told you", and I will be left with no other viable option but to agree with that. The objective proof will actually be there!
You seem to care about that much more than I do.
Okay, and if folks come into this exchange who still defend Communism, they will no doubt say the same thing about themselves in regard to the points they raise about capitalism.

But my frame of mind revolves around the assumption that individual motivations and intentions are embedded in the enormous gap between what "I" think I know about myself here and now and all that actually could be known about myself if I had access to all of the variables that went into creating "me" from the cradle to, well, "here and now".

Again, it all depends on the extent to which one is able to convince oneself that "I" am in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

And then acknowledging that the closer one comes to believing this, the more likely they are able to attain and then sustain the sort of "comfort and consolation" that human psychological defense mechanisms were designed [by nature] to help us endure what can be a profoundly precarious and problematic life.
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.
phyllo wrote:
Yeah, I'm still convinced that there is truth "out there" that can be used to make decisions.



There you go. This works for you. And since what you think you know is true here is what motivates your behaviors, you can choose to go after the Communists in much the same manner that they choose to go after the capitalists.
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.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Because, again, all you need do is to believe it.
I guess that you know what I think and do better than I know it myself. :shock:
What's important though [to me] is how "general" this assessment is.
Do you want me to make a specific claim?
Somewhere "out there" is the whole truth about Communism.
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?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:37 pm

phyllo wrote:
Some Communists will argue that these policies were necessary [historically] because the capitalist juggernaut around the globe was hell bent on destroying the Soviet system by whatever means necessary. So, by whatever means necessary, the Communists were forced to defend themselves.


Then one goes on to examine how much of a threat was posed by the "capitalist juggernaut" and whether the response was appropriate. Kind of like determining whether it's appropriate to swap a fly with a sledgehammer.


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.

phyllo wrote: You act as if any response is reasonable.


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.

Still others will argue that next time the revolution will be done right.

phyllo wrote: Sure. Do the same things but get a different result next time.


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.

Others will note that in nations like Russia and China the revolutions did not unfold in accordance with the official Marxist trajectory.


phyllo wrote: Not surprising since Marx made up all the stuff. You know "in his head".


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

phyllo wrote: The actual trajectory shows how quickly and easily the theory falls apart and the society becomes a totalitarian nightmare.


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!

And any revolution will beget these terrible things.


phyllo wrote: Oh really? You can't have a significant change without the horrors and the terrors?


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".

phyllo wrote: Sounds like your giving carte blanche to the revolutionaries. "Do whatever you want and you won't be held accountable".


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?

And then [of course] there are all the terrible tales [and practices] that the Communists can disclose to us about the capitalist political economy.


phyllo wrote: This sounds like just bringing up the evils of capitalism makes the evils of communism "go away".


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:12 pm

Notice how this :
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.

contrasts with this:
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.

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.
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.
As if it can't be inherently broken.

But sure, try it again and kill a few more millions.
Note to others: What does this tell you about the sophistication of his thinking here?
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.
Not in a world where the significant changes embraced by some are construed as horrible and terrible by others.
Well, we're talking about murder and enslavement and a police state, etc.
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.
Too general and abstract. I invite you to bring it down to earth.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:46 pm

phyllo wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I make a personal evaluation that those sort of things are not acceptable. It's my personal line in the sand.



But that's my point.


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.


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:

You are considerably more convinced that your take on Communism is much, much closer to whatever all rational men and women will be obligated to think about it if, one day, philosophers and ethicists and political scientists actually do pin this all down.


phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

The day you'll be able to say, "see, I told you", and I will be left with no other viable option but to agree with that. The objective proof will actually be there!

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


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!!

Okay, and if folks come into this exchange who still defend Communism, they will no doubt say the same thing about themselves in regard to the points they raise about capitalism.

But my frame of mind revolves around the assumption that individual motivations and intentions are embedded in the enormous gap between what "I" think I know about myself here and now and all that actually could be known about myself if I had access to all of the variables that went into creating "me" from the cradle to, well, "here and now".

Again, it all depends on the extent to which one is able to convince oneself that "I" am in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

And then acknowledging that the closer one comes to believing this, the more likely they are able to attain and then sustain the sort of "comfort and consolation" that human psychological defense mechanisms were designed [by nature] to help us endure what can be a profoundly precarious and problematic life.


phyllo wrote: Well isn't that general and abstract.


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?

phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

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


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:38 pm

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.
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.
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.
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'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.
I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and yet I don't care if oblivion is on the other side.
Of course I care about it! Just as you are keenly intent on not having me yank you down into the hole with me.
"keenly intent" is your fantasy assessment.
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.
Go ahead, bring it down to earth. You haven't done it even once. Let's see if you can.
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.
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".
"Due respect to the truth"? Nope, nothing subjective and subjunctive about that.
Show that I don't respect the truth.

You make a lot of objective claims about me.
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"
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:20 am

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.


Well boys, here's one to get you started.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:50 am

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.
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:16 pm

phyllo wrote: Notice how this :
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.

contrasts with this:
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.

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.


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?

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.


phyllo wrote: As if it can't be inherently broken.

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


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.

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


phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

phyllo wrote: And sure, he saw some of the evils of capitalism and he wanted to avoid them. But was his solution adequate or correct?


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.

phyllo wrote: 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.


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".

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


phyllo wrote:Well, we're talking about murder and enslavement and a police state, etc.


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:

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.


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


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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
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.
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.


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.

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.


phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

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.


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


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.

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.



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


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 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"


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


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:

https://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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Pneumatic-Coma » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:14 pm

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments prooffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of copnception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politcially or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.


[-o< [-o< [-o< Preach it!
(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.
User avatar
Pneumatic-Coma
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Purgatory

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:39 pm

Pneumatic-Coma wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments prooffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of copnception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politcially or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.


[-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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:22 pm

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

The spell Dennett wants to break is not only religion, but the taboo on talking about it and using our best methods of investigation to figure out what is true about it. A weaker version of the same spell may have discouraged discussions of morality that call the whole enterprise into question. A natural history of morality with an account of its evolution might be as corrosive to moral beliefs as a natural history of religion has been to religious ones. Furthermore, Dennett’s well-known claim that it is possible to be an atheist and believe in belief in God, is on a par with the claim that it is possible to be a moral error theorist and believe in belief in morality.


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26997
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]