gib wrote:iambiguous wrote:Yes, the variables are what they are. My point though is that, given a particular set of variables [experiences], one is more rather than less predisposed to embrace one rather than another set of values. And that, philosophically, there does not appear to be a way in which to assess which set of values is more [let alone the most] rational.
Yes, I agree with that. I only like to emphasize that, from my point of view, whatever one feels or believes at a given moment, that determines reality/truth for the person in that moment.
But this is not the case with respect to that which can be shown [demonstrated] to be true objectively for all of us.
John either was or was not executed in a Texas prison. That someone feels or believes that he was or was not executed doesn't change the fact of it.
But where things get tricky of course is that someone might believe that he was or he was not executed and behave accordingly. And that can precipitate actual consequences regardless of what the true facts are.
Still, if someone feels or believes that it is right or wrong for the state to execute prisoners, there does not appear [to me] to be the equivalent of an objective fact here in order to determine who is in fact correct and who is in fact incorrect.
Instead, that seems ever embodied in subjective opinions that come to be attached to one or another political prejudice.
Thus, from my perspective, what the moral objectivists do is to equate the two. They argue that if you understand the world "rationally" or "ideally" or "naturally" the morality of capital punishment can in turn be determined objectively. Just as objectively as the fact of an execution itself.
Or so it seems to me.
gib wrote: For an objectivist, this is not so easy. An objectivist is apt to say: well, so-and-so may feel a certain way or believe this or that, but that doesn't make it so. And given that his life could have gone in a different direction, so could his feelings and beliefs. What makes those any less real/true?
I agree that what counts out in the "real world" is what someone thinks or feels. Why? Because they will behave accordingly. And it can't be stressed enough: it is in behaving [acting out their thoughts and feelings] that actual consequences are precipitated.
All I can then do is to, once again, make the crucial distinction between those things that one thinks and feels which are able to be demonstrated as in fact true objectively for all of us, and those things that one thinks and feels which seem only to be embodied subjectively/subjunctively in particular political prejudices.
On the other hand, in the manner in which I interpret the latter, I become ensnared in my dilemma.
iambiguous wrote:Whereas with respect to math and science and logic and empirical fact it makes no difference how different your life is from others. Here there are truths -- objective truths -- that transcend dasein.
gib wrote: Yes, but for me, even those are rooted in subjectivity--it's just that they don't tend to change from one person to another or from one point in a person's life to another.
The laws of mathematics and physics seem to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of subjective opinion and moral/political prejudice. Otherwise we couldn't send astronauts to the moon. We can only argue endlessly over whether it is immoral to spend money on space exploration when there are so many more dire problems to be solved right here on earth.
Both sides get to embrace "personal truths" [that are in conflict] but from my point of view this is a far cry from having actually established the truth philosophically, deontologically.
gib wrote: I agree, but if neither of us are objectivists, then we both know there isn't the truth--at least not for things rooted primarily in dasein--there is only my truth and your truth; you seem to regard these as metaphorical at best, or less "solid" than hard empirical truth, whereas I grant them full truth but in a relativistic sense.
Still, how would your understanding of this be conveyed to those objectivists on either side of an issue like abortion? How can a "full truth" be granted to a frame of mind that is largely just an existential fabrication/contraption? From my perspective, once you acknowledge that "I" here is [by and large] embodied in countless existential variables/interactions [embedded in a particular life out in a particular world] beyond both your complete understanding or control, you are faced with just how problematic and precarious your values become.
iambiguous wrote:Empirical truths can be established as to whether Mary is 5'6" tall and had an abortion. But what is the empirical truth regarding the morality of these facts.
gib wrote: There is no empirical truth about it. My point is that if you look to the empirical world for an answer to these questions and you find that, empirically speaking, there is no fact of the matter, then there is no fact of the matter. <-- That's for one who believes in the absolute objectivity of the empirical world, one who looks there for final answers. But if you're one who believes that truth stems from subjectivity, then even if the empirical world has no answers for you, that doesn't take away from the force of one's subjective, prejudice-based opinions in determining truth (in a relativistic sense).
I think the crux of the problem here -- the gap in our communication -- is the extent to which you see truth stemming from subjectivity. For me this is to say that it is a "truth" for you "in your head". A subjective truth given the life that you have lived, the experiences that you have had. Knowing all the while that had this life been different your "truth" might well be invested in the opposite point of view.
And that both points of view are still embedded in conflicting goods.
To wit:
iambiguous wrote:My problem here though still revolves around this: With respect to actual conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments how "on earth" would this "work"? In other words, how in particular would you translate this frame of mind if you were in the midst of a fierce confrontation outside an abortion clinic between those on both sides of the issue?
What would you say to them? You can speak of "prongs" embedded in my dilemma but [for me] it finally comes down to an argument that is able to integrate both into a frame of mind that effectively integrates the conflicting goods in the "abortion wars" where babies either will or will not be killed.
gib wrote: This is prong #2. I wouldn't have much to say. I know how I would assess the situation. I would think to myself: abortion is right for him. It's wrong for her. It's whatever for me. Etc., etc., etc.. I get the impression at this point though that prong #2 is the only thing that really concerns you. I got the impression (sort of, kind of) that you agreed that your nihilism can sometimes prove to be self-negating, but I'm not sure you really struggle with that. You do seem to be looking for an objectivist's approach to resolving all these dasein-based conflicts and attempts to attain truth. However, it's not clear, at this point, whether you hold out any hope of finding something or you are really trying to prove to yourself and others that no such approach can exist. <-- But then what?
I start by acknowledging this particular fact: that the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe are able to convince themselves [or allow others to convince them] that morality can be grounded in either God or Reason or Nature.
One or another objective [or transcending] font/foundation.
I don't believe this. So, sure, I am here in search of an argument that might persuade me otherwise.
For me, moral nihilism fractures and fragments "I". How? By ever situating the "self" out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And by noting the extent to which we live in world [from the cradle to the grave] awash in contingency, chance and change. As long as I recognize the extent to which "I" is just an existential fabrication/contraption pertaining to that which is of most importance to me -- how ought one to live? -- the subjective truth that you speak of is no less a fabrication/contraption. The fact that someone "intuits" behaving in one way rather than another, is no less the embodiment of dasein from my point of view.
gib wrote: If we were to take a more serious example--say abortion--I would bring forward whatever reasons I normally have for siding with pro-life vs. pro-choice. I don't think any of these would be the final answers, or the decisive arguments--as if I was the first and only one to finally recognize the real truth about the matter--but I know that whatever my reasons are for choosing this or that side of the issue, voicing those reasons *can* be persuasive.
This is basically my own equivalent of the "political leap of faith". It's just that both sides in the abortion wars are able to argue persuasively. And the leap is no less the embodiment of dasein.
Also, the argument of the sociopath/narcissist is no less persuasive. And he or she recognizes "the power of a good argument" in turn. That, in a world sans God, self-gratification is their own particular moral font of choice.
And it is nihilists of this ilk that basically run the world.
iambiguous wrote:Where I tend to make a distinction here between you and I is in regard to what you call your "self-imposed moral obligations". This [from my frame of mind] becomes hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. You are obliging yourself to just accept that "I" was created within the parameters of a particular set of existential variables; and that the particular political prejudice that you were predisposed to "leap" to existentially will have to do given that there is no universal, objective morality.
gib wrote: Yes. Keep in mind that insofar as I experience myself as an "I", that "I" exists (it is rooted in subjectivity). And the phenomenon of the "I" is much like the color of the banana; we are genetically predisposed to experience it as real--it's not just a theory particular to a specific culture or religion.
And yet there are aspects of "I" that are anything but subjective. You either do or you do not have a brain tumor. You either are or are not a citizen of North Korea. You either did or did not just get fired. You either are or you are not homosexual. You either are or are not black.
Facts. But it is in how you and others react to those facts subjectively that precipitate behaviors that precipitate consequences. And, from my frame of mind, we live in a world where it does not appear possible to determine deontologically how the rational/virtuous man or women is obligated to react. And thus to behave.
It's just that the subjectivists here among us seem less entangled in my own particular dilemma.
iambiguous wrote:This is still really fuzzy to me. The "consistency and coherence" of my own value judgments is no less embodied in dasein. And in conflicting goods. In other words, given very different variables in my actual "lived life" this consistency and coherence might just as easily have been in defense of an opposite moral/political narrative.
gib wrote: The consistency and coherency of one's philosophical views was only highlighted to show how it helps to escape prong #1--how to avoid recognizing any self-negating tendencies of such views--not to show that you've got the right narrative or the "real" truth. That coupled with the fact that, at any one time, such views are your views leaves one with the only obvious option: keep believing in your views.
I suppose what it comes down to is that you would seem to have a considerably more substantial "sense of self" here than I do. In other words, pertaining to conflicting value judgments, I have no self to negate. "I" is still more -- considerably more -- an existential fabrication/contraption to me.
And I "keep believing in my views" only by recognizing in turn that new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information/knowledge etc., may well reconfigure them [or even upend them] at any time.
Again, making "I" here considerably more tenuous for me than for others.