moral relativism

[henry quirk]

those on the other side are also able to make the reasonable argument that however this life came to be, it is still no less an innocent human life.

No, their argument is not reasonable.

Consider an up in the clouds, sky hooked, example.

You wake and find yourself surgically bound to a stranger. A doctor explains the stranger is wholly dependent on your body for life. To disconnect him from you means he dies. Now, you may choose to allow the connection to remain, to be this stranger's life support for say, nine months, but this circumstance is not sumthin' you consented to. To compel you to remain bound up is not reasonable, not just. And, yes, the stranger is an innocent. This may have bearing on what you choose to do, but cannot mitigate that you did not consent.

So, sure, others may object to you disconnecting yourself from that stranger, or may object to the rape victim aborting the child, but those objections are not reasonable. It simply is not reasonable to demand someone play out a circumstance they did not consent to.

Sorry, bubba: try harder.

[iambiguous]

See, there you go. You are able to make a reasonable argument for destroying an innocent human life [and you yourself insist that it is a human life] given the assumptions you make.

On the other hand, those on the other side are also able to make the reasonable argument that however this life came to be, it is still no less an innocent human life.

You're not "fond" of yanking it out of existence but, well, the lesser of two evils? Killing an unborn human being is evil, but not as evil as being raped?

...your position is predicated on the age-old objectivist assumption that your argument is inherently, necessarily more rational than the argument from the other side. Your self-righteous conscience trumps the death of this innocent unborn human being!

And your "proof" that this is the case? Simple: you believe that it is. You say that it is.

No, their argument is not reasonable.

Consider an up in the clouds, sky hooked, example.

You wake and find yourself surgically bound to a stranger. A doctor explains the stranger is wholly dependent on your body for life. To disconnect him from you means he dies. Now, you may choose to allow the connection to remain, to be this stranger's life support for say, nine months, but this circumstance is not sumthin' you consented to. To compel you to remain bound up is not reasonable, not just. And, yes, the stranger is an innocent. This may have bearing on what you choose to do, but cannot mitigate that you did not consent.

So, sure, others may object to you disconnecting yourself from that stranger, or may object to the rape victim aborting the child, but those objections are not reasonable. It simply is not reasonable to demand someone play out a circumstance they did not consent to.

Sorry, bubba: try harder.

No doubt about it: "In your head" this preposterous hypothetical scenario provides us with an irrefutable argument for justifying the taking of an unborn human life. If it's a stranger, innocent or not. You get to decide what all of the "mitigating" circumstances are. You get to play the philosopher king here.

Just as you do in defending your "natural right" to own a bazooka.

The objectivist mind in a nutshell.

[henry quirk]

I guess your wad is shot.

[iambiguous]

I guess your wad is shot.

This sort of substance-less "retort" is often what one encounters over at ILP. It's the reason I have shifted most of my time now to the PN forum. The assumption being that posts from philosophers who actually subscribe to or read Philosophy Now magazine are going to be considerably more substantial.

And they are by and large.

But either here or there the moral objectivists are invariably the same. All I can do is to expose them.

[henry quirk]

posts from philosophers

What a mook.

The philosophers here ain't goin' nowhere near your garbage, or hadn't you noticed?

Pretty much I'm the only one half-ass engagin' you (and that's only cuz I saw an opportunity to promote my own thinkin').

How disheartenin': the only guy willin' to talk with you ain't a philosopher and never gave a rat's dirty end about your datsun.

[iambiguous]

posts from philosophers

What a mook.

The philosophers here ain't goin' nowhere near your garbage, or hadn't you noticed?

Pretty much I'm the only one half-ass engagin' you (and that's only cuz I saw an opportunity to promote my own thinkin').

How disheartenin': the only guy willin' to talk with you ain't a philosopher and never gave a rat's dirty end about your datsun.

This sort of half-assed declamation is now SOP at ILP.

I just didn't expect it here.

Though I do agree that wherever I go I don't have many willing to engage me. Or the arguments I make.

As I noted to prom75 elsewhere...

Yep, [philosophers steering clear of me] has been the general pattern over the years. In particular with the objectivists.

I've narrowed it down to three possible reasons:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

Then there are the "serious philosophers" who tend to keep philosophy up in the intellectual "world of words" clouds.

What Will Durant called "the epistemologists":

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

And that's fine up to a point. But in regard to my own main interest in philosophy -- connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then -- others either bring their definitions and deductions down to Earth or they don't.

On the other hand, I'm willing to admit that the problem might be me. Dasein is a point of view I have managed to think myself into believing with respect to "I" in the is/ought world, but it's not really a rational frame of mind and my technical "philosophical skills" aren't sophisticated enough to grasp that.

Sure, in that case move on to others.

[henry quirk]

I do agree that wherever I go I don't have many willing to engage me. Or the arguments I make.

Now, is this becuz everyone is cowed by the argument, or becuz they find it, ultimately, facile?

[iambiguous]

I do agree that wherever I go I don't have many willing to engage me. Or the arguments I make.

Now, is this becuz everyone is cowed by the argument, or becuz they find it, ultimately, facile?

That's not the point. The point is that how others react to our value judgments is rooted existentially in dasein. You of course insist that, on the contrary, there is only one way in which all rational men and women are obligated to react to them -- to anything -- and that's as you do.

You're as predictable [to me] as any other objectivist. Only you are particularly prone, in my opinion, to making a fool out of yourself with your "posts" here of late.

Okay, fine. If it doesn't embarrass you to do this, it certainly doesn't embarrass me to suggest that it ought to.

Then I can only bring the "discussion" back around to the point I note on other tread:

Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?

Really, how on earth can anyone know that for sure?

You'll either go there or you won't.

[Iwannaplato]

What Will Durant called "the epistemologists":

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

Wow, Durant's quite the objectivist! as you use the term.

and then...

And that's fine up to a point.

And then the serious philosopher gets a qualified objectivist approval by you. 'fine...up to a point' when it presumably is no longer 'fine'. An objectivist evaluation.
Then it slips back into non-objectivism...

But in regard to my own main interest in philosophy -- connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then -- others either bring their definitions and deductions down to Earth or they don't.

On the other hand, I'm willing to admit that the problem might be me.

and here we have the implied objectivism. willing to admit good, not willing to admit, less good. Also, me who is wrong, not me whose behavior is problematic. I call in Durant to damn their positions and behavior, and objectively damn, and my 'shock' at their poor sportsmanship (objectivism).

Dasein is a point of view I have managed to think myself into believing with respect to "I" in the is/ought world, but it's not really a rational frame of mind and my technical "philosophical skills" aren't sophisticated enough to grasp that.

Well, this is a lovely admission, or, well, could be. I am not even sure it is true. What you are calling dasein seems, in the end, to be a rather common position around the non-objectivism of moral positions coupled with the vastly more common position that we are extremely affected in our beliefs by what we experience. When I say 'common' I don't mean that some large percentage of the world's population holds it, but in pretty much any philosophical forum there will be advocates. There's certainly another one or two here. And some of the top 40 classic rock hit philosophers have held similar positions, so faux or real humility about you or it not being rational seems misplaced.

But any theory about why people do not engage with you must seriosuly include how you go about communicating with them - and that one didn't seem to be seriously considered on the list. Because dasein, or one might use the word bias, is often worst when it comes to our own behavior. No, it wasn't my behavior, it was their fear, stupidity, unwillingness to consider and so on. Not that this needs to be the focus of the discussion. But then their reasons, as guessed at by you, can be left out also. In fact, to facilitate the leaving aside of analysis of both sides or all sides on this issue, I won't mention any of it again.

It comes down to 'is objectivism a good tool to use in a philosophical argument attempting to get people to reconsider their objectivism'?

I would guess not. I would suggest it is a poor choice, a poor choice not on moral grounds, but on practical ones.

[henry quirk]

You of course insist that...there is only one way in which all rational men and women are obligated to react to them -- to anything -- and that's as you do.

No, bubba, I don't.

You'll either go there or you won't.

No, bubba, I won't.

[iambiguous]

You of course insist that...there is only one way in which all rational men and women are obligated to react to them -- to anything -- and that's as you do.

No, bubba, I don't.

You'll either go there or you won't.

No, bubba, I won't.

Again, here's where he won't go...

"Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?

Really, how on earth can anyone know that for sure?"

He claims he doesn't insist that others have to react as he does to things but he won't provide us with examples of where, here, he was willing to accept the reactions of others in opposition to him.

Whereas as I am always willing to acknowledge that those not in sync with my own moral and political prejudices are capable of making rational arguments in defense of their own point of view. After all, the experiences in their lives may have been profoundly different from mine.

[iambiguous]

What Will Durant called "the epistemologists":

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

Wow, Durant's quite the objectivist! as you use the term.

Yes, to the extent he insisted only his own assessment here qualified as the optimal or the only rational assessment of the true philosopher, he is, in my view, an objectivist. Similarly, to the extent I or others insist that all rational men and women are obligated to think as he does, they too are objectivists, in my view.

This is all rooted subjectively in dasein. Then this part: since individual value judgments are [existentially] the reflections of the lives we live, is it then possible, using the tools of philosophy, to deduce the most reasonable assessment here?

You tell me.

And that's fine up to a point.

And then the serious philosopher gets a qualified objectivist approval by you. 'fine...up to a point' when it presumably is no longer 'fine'. An objectivist evaluation.
Then it slips back into non-objectivism...

As I noted...

But in regard to my own main interest in philosophy -- connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then -- others either bring their definitions and deductions down to Earth or they don't.

On the other hand, I'm willing to admit that the problem might be me.

and here we have the implied objectivism. willing to admit good, not willing to admit, less good. Also, me who is wrong, not me whose behavior is problematic. I call in Durant to damn their positions and behavior, and objectively damn, and my 'shock' at their poor sportsmanship (objectivism).

"Good, less good, wrong, problematic behavior"...in regard to what set of circumstances? Again, note one of particular importance to you [like bazookas are to Henry], and we can explore our respective moral philosophies.

Dasein is a point of view I have managed to think myself into believing with respect to "I" in the is/ought world, but it's not really a rational frame of mind and my technical "philosophical skills" aren't sophisticated enough to grasp that.

And then back up into the "intellectual clouds" you go.

Well, this is a lovely admission, or, well, could be. I am not even sure it is true. What you are calling dasein seems, in the end, to be a rather common position around the non-objectivism of moral positions coupled with the vastly more common position that we are extremely affected in our beliefs by what we experience. When I say 'common' I don't mean that some large percentage of the world's population holds it, but in pretty much any philosophical forum there will be advocates. There's certainly another one or two here. And some of the top 40 classic rock hit philosophers have held similar positions, so faux or real humility about you or it not being rational seems misplaced.

But any theory about why people do not engage with you must seriously include how you go about communicating with them - and that one didn't seem to be seriously considered on the list. Because dasein, or one might use the word bias, is often worst when it comes to our own behavior. No, it wasn't my behavior, it was their fear, stupidity, unwillingness to consider and so on. Not that this needs to be the focus of the discussion. But then their reasons, as guessed at by you, can be left out also. In fact, to facilitate the leaving aside of analysis of both sides or all sides on this issue, I won't mention any of it again.

It comes down to 'is objectivism a good tool to use in a philosophical argument attempting to get people to reconsider their objectivism'?

I would guess not. I would suggest it is a poor choice, a poor choice not on moral grounds, but on practical ones.

As suggested, what we need in order to explore all of this more substantively is a context that brings your own "world of words" above down to Earth. Why don't you choose one.

There's how we choose to communicate to others and there's what we choose to community to others. How, given a particular context, do you intertwine them out in the world of actual human interactions where conflicting value judgments precipitate behaviors that precipitate actual consequences in our lives.

[henry quirk]

So, as I say, my sole purpose has been to give you what you asked for: an ethic applicable to all men, all the time, everywhere. This, I did, over and over. I gave you the ethic, and that from which even a bubba can derive the ethic.

You wanna talk about it?

[iambiguous]

So, as I say, my sole purpose has been to give you what you asked for: an ethic applicable to all men, all the time, everywhere. This, I did, over and over. I gave you the ethic, and that from which even a bubba can derive the ethic.

You wanna talk about it?

But I repeat myself...

What I've been trying to get you to talk about are those who "give us an ethic" that is wholly in opposition to your own regarding such "conflicting goods" as abortion and owning bazookas.

Indeed, they share your conviction that there is but one truly rational assessment. But it's theirs not yours.

Then [for objectivsts on both sides] this part:

Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?

Really, how on earth can anyone know that for sure?

Yet if you are a fulminating fanatic objectivist [as I understand it], you will insist that you "just know" nothing could ever change your mind. Your Self is as rock solid as a solid rock. It's the moral equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2. It's, what, a metaphysical certainty?

And nothing comforts and consoles the objectivists more than "just knowing" that.

That, in my view, is what you don't want to talk about. Or, I suspect, to think about.

[henry quirk]

Right, a hard no.