moral relativism

[Walker]

In regard to morality, Henry and I could not possibly be further removed in regard to "owning" our lives.

Henry says, and I paraphrase, that every person owns himself, or herself.

To be further removed from that is to say that every person does not own himself, or herself.

Correct?

It could be said that self-ownership is what's getting fragmented, which is where you think you diverge in basic principle, but perhaps do not.

That does seem like a fundamental premise. For example, from what I've heard, J.S. Bach thought differently about self-ownership.

[henry quirk]

Walker,

Regardin' your conversation with biggy...

biggy believes I found my morality in God.

It was the opposite.

Well before I shifted to deism (sumthin' I did only three or four years back), I recognized myself as a free will with a right to myself...hell, I've known these things my entire life...as a child, well before I had the language to express it, I understood I had causal power; I understood I was my own and it was not right, when I'd done no wrong, to be used against my will.

Reason, as I grew up, brought me to the recognition that as I am a free will with a right to myself, so it is for all other folks too.

As I say: I've known these things my entire life and, as various verifiable conversations and debates in-forum, stretchin' back years, illustrate, I was an advocate and defender for these ideas as an atheist, not a deist.

It was my bein' a free will with an inalienable claim to my life, liberty, and property (and conversations with a thoughtful friend) that brought me, relatively late in life, to God. In other words: bein' a free will with natural rights, I came to see atheism's rudderless, skipperless, take on reality as the vacant thing it is: explainin' nuthin' about nuthin' to no one, demandin' I de-recognize myself as a free will with natural rights and accept myself as a cog with no claim to himself.

A prime mover, The Prime Mover, is the explanation why man, in a deterministic universe, is a wild card and why, amongst life that is mindless and amoral, man is mind-imbued and moral.

Just wanted to clear that up for you before biggy takes you too far down the road, clamin' I believe things that ain't so, or takin' the elements of my thinkin' and beliefs out of context, or jumblin' those elements up out of the proper sequence.

-----

take everything, anything, biggy posts about me or my views, not with a grain, but with a handful of salt

he is the embodiment of...

4C99759C-3657-4A5D-A66E-4BC1795C2602.jpeg

his post below is utterly wrong, about everything

[iambiguous]

In regard to morality, Henry and I could not possibly be further removed in regard to "owning" our lives.

Henry says, and I paraphrase, that every person owns himself, or herself.

To be further removed from that is to say that every person does not own himself, or herself.

Correct?

Let's try to clear this up.

If I understand him correctly Henry seems to convey the belief that in "owning" himself he has come to conclude that it is rational -- natural -- that private citizens can buy and sell bazookas.

But what if another in "owning" him or herself concludes that it is irrational that private citizens can buy or sell bazookas?

Now, from my frame of mind, there are the moral and political objectivists here who insist that "conflicting goods" such as this can be resolved. Why? Because they believe it is possible for them to be in sync with the Real Me and that this Real Me can [philosophically or otherwise] be in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

Thus, it's "resolved" if you agree with them about it.

So, how is this the same or different from Henry's "owning" himself?

It could be said that self-ownership is what's getting fragmented, which is where you think you diverge in basic principle, but perhaps do not.

That does seem like a fundamental premise. For example, from what I've heard, J.S. Bach thought differently about self-ownership.

"I", self-ownership and fragmentation in regard to what? What set of circumstances? How did Bach come down on the moral issues of his day? Was he a Christian? Was he an objectivist?

Now, Henry also claims to be a Deist, And Deists "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

So, okay, how exactly does he connect the dots between the Deist God, Reason, Nature and buying and selling bazookas?

Is he an advocate of "my way or the highway" here? Or, as with those like me, is he more likely to suggest that "your right from your side, I'm right from mine"? That both sides are able to make reasonable arguments the other side can't just make go away: https://gun-control.procon.org/

I merely suggest in turn that right and wrong here are derived more from political prejudices rooted existentially and intersubjectively in dasein... rooted in turn in ever evolving and changing historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts.

Rather than from the presumption that in regard to all moral and political conflagrations the world is divided up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

Which, for those like Henry [from my frame of mind], goes something like this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], Henry is taught or comes into contact with [through his upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life about buying and selling bazookas.

2] Over time, he becomes convinced that this perspective on buying and selling bazookas expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to him as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational in regard to buying and selling bazookas

3] Eventually, he bumps into others who feel the same way about buying and selling bazookas; he might even have begun to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the buying and selling bazookas in the same way

4] He begins to share this belief about buying and selling bazookas with family, friends, colleagues, associates, internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of his life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in his personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, he starts to feel increasingly compelled not only to share this truth about buying and selling bazookas with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] It then reaches the point where he is no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes his own about buying and selling bazookas as merely a difference of opinion; he sees it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on his intellectual integrity....on his very Self.

I call this the "psychology of objectivism". And, in my own personal opinion [no less rooted subjectively in the assumptions above] Henry embodies it in spades.

[Eodnhoj7]

really? how do men coexist peacefully without agreement?

You are assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence; as evidenced by struggle, men of opposing viewpoints exist without peace and coexistence as well.

no this is not assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence. the wild life does exist and does not have a peaceful coexistence, hence the term wild life.

mankind needs an agreement to coexist peacefully, otherwise its wild life, all is fair.

Life exists without peaceful coexistence within it. An agreement is not necessary for existence and we see this exist.

[popeye1945]

Compassion is elemental in the formation of morality and it is morality that makes a social contract possible. If there is no social contract there is no society, thus we are in the wilderness. In the wilderness, there is no need of morality for it is then, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish and nature is red in tooth and claw, you are on your own without the benefits or protection of a common society.

[Walker]

In regard to morality, Henry and I could not possibly be further removed in regard to "owning" our lives.

Henry says, and I paraphrase, that every person owns himself, or herself.

To be further removed from that is to say that every person does not own himself, or herself.

Correct?

Let's try to clear this up.

I think that slow and methodical, rather than leaping to implications, serves clarity. To that end the affirmation or negation of "correct?" isn't clear. The clearer the yea or nay, the more direct the discussion. Not being dogmatic, just getting on the same page. For example, in paraphrasing for henry, I made a tentative statement bordering on question. You on the other hand have written more words for henry, than henry wrote for henry.

As an aside, bazooka is quite a word. Kind of like, bezerker.

[DPMartin]

You are assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence; as evidenced by struggle, men of opposing viewpoints exist without peace and coexistence as well.

no this is not assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence. the wild life does exist and does not have a peaceful coexistence, hence the term wild life.

mankind needs an agreement to coexist peacefully, otherwise its wild life, all is fair.

Life exists without peaceful coexistence within it. An agreement is not necessary for existence and we see this exist.

the question was; how do men coexist peacefully without agreement? not whether or not life exist without existence. the observation that life exist without agreements is as redundant as, most cars have four wheels

[iambiguous]

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website

For centuries, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers have tried to explain why people act morally.

I've never understood why this is not patently obvious. Human beings are generally social animals. They come into the world one by one but like everyone else they are hard-wired to subsist. That means setting up communities able to provide access to food and water and shelter. Communities able to sustain reproduction. Communities able to defend themselves. At the same time, in our modern world, men and women also come to want many things that go beyond merely surviving. These wants and needs can come into conflict. Both within the communities and between them.

So, as plain as day, it will be necessary to create and then to sustain "rules of behavior". One set of behaviors is rewarded, another set punished.

How is that not morality in a nutshell? What, it didn't become morality until the advent of surplus labor allowed for the existence of philosophers?

As though our ancestors going back to the cave didn't come up with their own sets of dos and don'ts? It's just that back then the emphasis was placed more on a might makes right "morality".

Or is true morality only to be understood in terms of definitions and concepts and principles?

In an attempt to improve our understanding of why people act morally, researchers have taken on a new approach to moral psychology, which attempts to find a link between moral judgment and moral action. This new approach has raised an interest in the topic of moral identity, which Hardy and Carlo define as “the degree to which being a moral person is important to an individual’s identity”.

Or we could conduct our own "research" right here.

Is being a "moral person" important to you...to your "sense of identity"? Do you behave from day to day so as to act out this commitment to virtue in your interactions with others?

If pressed to think it through, what are the links most crucial to you in connecting these dots?

Me? Well, I don't think it is possible to be a moral person [as most understand it] without a "transcending font" to anchor one's virtue to. For most it is God. For others it is ideology or reason.

Instead, I see morality as a subjective/existential manifestation of dasein. And thus, ultimately, given my own attempts to think it through, fractured and fragmented.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

[iambiguous]

In regard to morality, Henry and I could not possibly be further removed in regard to "owning" our lives.

Henry says, and I paraphrase, that every person owns himself, or herself.

To be further removed from that is to say that every person does not own himself, or herself.

Correct?

Let's try to clear this up. If I understand him correctly Henry seems to convey the belief that in "owning" himself he has come to conclude that it is rational -- natural -- that private citizens can buy and sell bazookas.

But what if another in "owning" him or herself concludes that it is irrational that private citizens can buy or sell bazookas?

Now, from my frame of mind, there are the moral and political objectivists here who insist that "conflicting goods" such as this can be resolved. Why? Because they believe it is possible for them to be in sync with the Real Me and that this Real Me can [philosophically or otherwise] be in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

Thus, it's "resolved" if you agree with them about it.

I think that slow and methodical, rather than leaping to implications, serves clarity. To that end the affirmation or negation of "correct?" isn't clear. The clearer the yea or nay, the more direct the discussion. Not being dogmatic, just getting on the same page. For example, in paraphrasing for henry, I made a tentative statement bordering on question. You on the other hand have written more words for henry, than henry wrote for henry.

I have no clear understanding of what this has to do with the points I raise above regarding Henry and bazookas.

Slow and methodical in regard to the political conflagration that revolves around private citizens buying and selling bazookas? Leaping to implications pertaining to the relationship between private citizens and the government in regard to, say, the 2nd Amendment here in America?

Is Henry achieving "clarity" here more than I am?

He's clear alright. You think as he does or...or you are wrong? And somehow he connects the dots here between bazookas and his Deist God and Reason and Nature.

How they all come together "in his head" allowing him buy and sell bazookas -- and grenades? and mortar rounds? and rockets? and 50 cal. machine guns? and howitzers? -- with a clean conscience.

[Eodnhoj7]

no this is not assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence. the wild life does exist and does not have a peaceful coexistence, hence the term wild life.

mankind needs an agreement to coexist peacefully, otherwise its wild life, all is fair.

Life exists without peaceful coexistence within it. An agreement is not necessary for existence and we see this exist.

the question was; how do men coexist peacefully without agreement? not whether or not life exist without existence. the observation that life exist without agreements is as redundant as, most cars have four wheels

You are missing my point, peaceful coexistence is not necessary. In other words, what exists exists.

[Walker]

I have no clear understanding of what this has to do with the points I raise above regarding Henry and bazookas.

Well, when the tank is rolling down the road to flatten your house and/or your body, as the owner of that body*, you would find a bazooka to be a handy and necessary tool to defend your life during your last stand. What you do is hide in the bushes, then when the tank rolls by you aim at the treads, whistle Dixie pull the trigger and hope it works.

Brandon used to rhetorically ask, who needs a hundred-round magazine?

Answer: any Ukrainian mom, pop, or any other self-owning citizen.

You do think that each person owns themselves, don't you?

* the premise that you probably agree with.

[Walker]

Interesting, it’s recently come to light that Brandon’s vision of The Ministry of Truth, includes cause for Homeland Security* to investigate “disinformation” that fails to jive with the latest government decree of what’s true.

Extrapolate out into what if's, and what if the govt. says you can't write bazooka anymore, and if you do, the guys with all the bullets will be knocking on your door. Couldn't happen? Oh yes, it is ... err, it could.

And, Homeland Security has bought more ammo than any government body other than the Defense Department, although the Environmental Protection Agency used to hold that trophy, if memory serves. Imagine that, all that gunpowder to protect the environment.

$33 billion to Ukraine? Oy. Hey Brandon, how much does Hunter get?

* A federal police force? Comeon man. This ain't no Banana Republic. Is it?

[DPMartin]

Life exists without peaceful coexistence within it. An agreement is not necessary for existence and we see this exist.

the question was; how do men coexist peacefully without agreement? not whether or not life exist without existence. the observation that life exist without agreements is as redundant as, most cars have four wheels

You are missing my point, peaceful coexistence is not necessary. In other words, what exists exists.

in the wild, you're right its not necessary, but for mankind to coexist, its absolutely necessary. in mankind's case, no honor of agreement brings chaos.

[Belinda]

I have no clear understanding of what this has to do with the points I raise above regarding Henry and bazookas.

Well, when the tank is rolling down the road to flatten your house and/or your body, as the owner of that body*, you would find a bazooka to be a handy and necessary tool to defend your life during your last stand. What you do is hide in the bushes, then when the tank rolls by you aim at the treads, whistle Dixie pull the trigger and hope it works.

Brandon used to rhetorically ask, who needs a hundred-round magazine?

Answer: any Ukrainian mom, pop, or any other self-owning citizen.

You do think that each person owns themselves, don't you?

* the premise that you probably agree with.

So let's ask "what is a just war? "

[promethean75]

Well I support and endorse the citizen's right to not only bear arms but own military grade weapons systems as well. So for instance Musk should be allowed to buy a fully functioning and loaded aircraft carrier if he wanted. And folks like you and I should be able to put some money down on a half-track and set up a payment plan for the rest.

"when the tank is rolling down the road to flatten your house and/or your body, as the owner of that body*, you would find a bazooka to be a handy"

But remember, bazookas don't kill tanks. Henrys with bazookas kill tanks.