moral relativism

[Belinda]

Nothing exists without differentiation between subject and not-subject. Not only does a centre of experience impose existence upon differentiated entities, the centre of experience also imposes qualitatively and quantitatively differentiated values upon differentiated entities.

And that's true whether or not there is a God Who is a centre of all experience.

[popeye1945]

Nothing exists without differentiation between subject and not-subject. Not only does a centre of experience impose existence upon differentiated entities, the centre of experience also imposes qualitatively and quantitatively differentiated values upon differentiated entities.

And that's true whether or not there is a God Who is a centre of all experience.

Hi Belinda,
Differentiation is guaranteed for only the subject is the possessor of knowledge/meaning. The subject is the centre of experience and in the absence of the subject, the object ceases to be. The centre of experience/subject bestows all meaning upon a meaningless world.

[iambiguous]

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Moral Relativism Is Not Much of a Problem

Warnings against moral relativism are most often based on theoretical speculation. Critics consider the view’s nature and add certain assumptions about human psychology. Then they infer how being a relativist might affect a person’s behavior. For example, for a relativist, even actions such as murder or rape can never be really or absolutely wrong; they are only wrong to the extent that the relativist or most members of his or her culture believe them to be so.

Let's be blunt...

To the extent that, in any given community, more and more people start to think like this, how can it not but become a very, very big problem.

Basically a community of sociopaths. Not only that but then it would all seem to come down to who has the actual power to make others do his or her own bidding.

That's always been my own quandary here. I recognize that moral nihilism has the potential to be catastrophic in any community, but I don't know how to think myself out of not accepting it as a reasonable frame of mind in a No God world.

One may therefore worry that relativists are less motivated to refrain from murdering and raping than people who regard these actions as objectively wrong. While this scenario may sound plausible, however, it is important to note that relativism’s effects can only ultimately be determined by relevant studies.

Relevant studies? Theoretical assessments?

How about common sense.

If an individual rejects objective morality and is convinced that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted", it then comes down to how far he or she takes that given a particular set of circumstances. And if those circumstances involve the possibility of them murdering or raping you in order to sustain what they perceive to be in their own best interest, "moral relativism" can be described in all the "studies" in the world and it doesn't make your own gruesome fate go away.

No, I recognize the ominous "for all practical purposes" implications of moral relativism spreading more and more across the globe. I just can't come up with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that puts it in its place. That defeats it.

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

[Belinda]

Nothing exists without differentiation between subject and not-subject. Not only does a centre of experience impose existence upon differentiated entities, the centre of experience also imposes qualitatively and quantitatively differentiated values upon differentiated entities.

And that's true whether or not there is a God Who is a centre of all experience.

Hi Belinda,
Differentiation is guaranteed for only the subject is the possessor of knowledge/meaning. The subject is the centre of experience and in the absence of the subject, the object ceases to be. The centre of experience/subject bestows all meaning upon a meaningless world.

Yes. In the absence of the subject the object ceases to be: and in the absence of the object the subject ceases to be. I(subject) am defined by not-I(object). Not-I (object)is defined by I(subject).

[iambiguous]

My own assumption is that there are no preferential arguments, philosophies or choices there. Only subjective/problematic moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

Which is precisely why you need to remove yourself from the stupid games philosophers play. Abandon the 1st person perspective. Take a broader 3rd person view.

Look for the trends which remain despite any particular "dasein". The dasein of 18th century Germany is not the dasein of 5th century Rome, nor is it the dasein of 21st century France.

I am pointing out at trends which have persisted despite diverse dasein.

Again, if you are able to convince yourself that "trends" in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice and on and on and on and on confirm that the morality of these issues has been established objectively, fine, good for you.

That is simply not good enough for me. It doesn't make the points raised by both sides in these historical conflagrations go away. Only God, in my view, is able to frame these disputes in such a way that on Judgment Day your own personal opinions are evaluated "once and for all".

Well, if you mean that every human community must create "rules of behavior" in interacting socially, politically and economically because over time conflicting wants and needs begin to accumulate, okay.

Yeah. OK. Are human needs objective? Or are the needs for food, safety, shelter etc. just rooted in dasein?

Human needs are universal. We all must subsist. We all must have food and water and shelter. We all must be able to defend ourselves against enemies. We all must sustain a community conducive to the reproduction of the community itself. Here the squabbles tend to revolve more around means. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. The emphasis on "I" or on "we".

It is in the realm of wants that both the means and the ends can be open to contention. Why what I want rather than what you want? Especially when what I want is against what you want. I want to live in a world where I have access to guns, you want to live in a world where gun ownership is forbidden.

So, to resolve this deontologically, let's go to the historical trends?

If you want to call that "objective morality", sure. But that doesn't make my arguments above go away.

So what? I can ignore any argument I want to ignore.

Well, if that's where you want to go here. But my point is that the arguments we choose to embrace or to ignore are rooted largely in the profoundly problematic subjective parameters of dasein, derived from the particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts in which we were thrown at birth. And in which we live our lives.

Clearly, the manner in which we construe "objective morality" here is very, very different.

Thus...

Again, we are in two different discussions here. You keep focusing on things like general happiness, wealth, education etc., as though, using the tools of philosophy, this can be directly connected to establishing an objective morality in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, gender roles, sexual issues, just war, social justice and on and on and on.

Why are you having issue establishing the morality of those things? I am not having such problems. Is it possible that your moral compass is dysfunctional?

Sure. But your arguments are predicated on a set of assumptions that others are commanded to accept in order that they be deemed entirely functional like yours. This frame of mind is what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] an objective morality.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy/morality with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their moral truths with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend them against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own moral compass as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for moral truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Of course objective morality may exist. A God, the God may in fact exist to establish that. Or there may be a secular Humanist argument that establishes it. I have simply not come across it yet myself.

So as a "drawn and quartered" relativist you have chosen to believe that arguments establish morality.

No, "here and now" it seems reasonable to me that it cannot be established beyond all doubt that a God, the God does not exist. Nor can it be established definitively that in a No God world there is not a Humanist argument "out there" able to be invented or discovered that establishes objective morality. My point is that if these things do exist it is incumbent upon those who claim that they do to demonstrate it such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept it.

Something that, in my opinion, you have not even come close to establishing. Although, again, I have absolutely no capacity "here and now" to demonstrate that myself.

And then you wonder why you can't recognize objective morality for what it is. Irrespective of any argument about it.
You are indeed trapped in the dasein of philosophy and argumentation.

Right, like it is necessarily true that you are not "trapped' in your own set of assumptions.

To me, you are basically a run-of-the-mill objectivist.

[Belinda]

My own assumption is that there are no preferential arguments, philosophies or choices there. Only subjective/problematic moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

Which is precisely why you need to remove yourself from the stupid games philosophers play. Abandon the 1st person perspective. Take a broader 3rd person view.

Look for the trends which remain despite any particular "dasein". The dasein of 18th century Germany is not the dasein of 5th century Rome, nor is it the dasein of 21st century France.

I am pointing out at trends which have persisted despite diverse dasein.

Again, if you are able to convince yourself that "trends" in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice and on and on and on and on confirm that the morality of these issues has been established objectively, fine, good for you.

That is simply not good enough for me. It doesn't make the points raised by both sides in these historical conflagrations go away. Only God, in my view, is able to frame these disputes in such a way that on Judgment Day your own personal opinions are evaluated "once and for all".

Well, if you mean that every human community must create "rules of behavior" in interacting socially, politically and economically because over time conflicting wants and needs begin to accumulate, okay.

Yeah. OK. Are human needs objective? Or are the needs for food, safety, shelter etc. just rooted in dasein?

Human needs are universal. We all must subsist. We all must have food and water and shelter. We all must be able to defend ourselves against enemies. We all must sustain a community conducive to the reproduction of the community itself. Here the squabbles tend to revolve more around means. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. The emphasis on "I" or on "we".

It is in the realm of wants that both the means and the ends can be open to contention. Why what I want rather than what you want? Especially when what I want is against what you want. I want to live in a world where I have access to guns, you want to live in a world where gun ownership is forbidden.

So, to resolve this deontologically, let's go to the historical trends?

If you want to call that "objective morality", sure. But that doesn't make my arguments above go away.

So what? I can ignore any argument I want to ignore.

Well, if that's where you want to go here. But my point is that the arguments we choose to embrace or to ignore are rooted largely in the profoundly problematic subjective parameters of dasein, derived from the particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts in which we were thrown at birth. And in which we live our lives.

Clearly, the manner in which we construe "objective morality" here is very, very different.

Thus...

Again, we are in two different discussions here. You keep focusing on things like general happiness, wealth, education etc., as though, using the tools of philosophy, this can be directly connected to establishing an objective morality in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, gender roles, sexual issues, just war, social justice and on and on and on.

Why are you having issue establishing the morality of those things? I am not having such problems. Is it possible that your moral compass is dysfunctional?

Sure. But your arguments are predicated on a set of assumptions that others are commanded to accept in order that they be deemed entirely functional like yours. This frame of mind is what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] an objective morality.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy/morality with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their moral truths with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend them against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own moral compass as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for moral truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Of course objective morality may exist. A God, the God may in fact exist to establish that. Or there may be a secular Humanist argument that establishes it. I have simply not come across it yet myself.

So as a "drawn and quartered" relativist you have chosen to believe that arguments establish morality.

No, "here and now" it seems reasonable to me that it cannot be established beyond all doubt that a God, the God does not exist. Nor can it be established definitively that in a No God world there is not a Humanist argument "out there" able to be invented or discovered that establishes objective morality. My point is that if these things do exist it is incumbent upon those who claim that they do to demonstrate it such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept it.

Something that, in my opinion, you have not even come close to establishing. Although, again, I have absolutely no capacity "here and now" to demonstrate that myself.

And then you wonder why you can't recognize objective morality for what it is. Irrespective of any argument about it.
You are indeed trapped in the dasein of philosophy and argumentation.

Right, like it is necessarily true that you are not "trapped' in your own set of assumptions.

To me, you are basically a run-of-the-mill objectivist.

I copy Skepdick:

Human needs are universal. We all must subsist. We all must have food and water and shelter. We all must be able to defend ourselves against enemies. We all must sustain a community conducive to the reproduction of the community itself. Here the squabbles tend to revolve more around means. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. The emphasis on "I" or on "we".

Sartre's existentialism describes the Dasein thing(being there in an environment)as a tension between the individual and the collective. You look at another conscious being and see them looking back at you so that there are two subjects of experience. But two subjects is impossible QED. So inevitably there is tension.

[popeye1945]

Hi Belinda,
Differentiation is guaranteed for only the subject is the possessor of knowledge/meaning. The subject is the centre of experience and in the absence of the subject, the object ceases to be. The centre of experience/subject bestows all meaning upon a meaningless world.
[/quote]

Yes. In the absence of the subject the object ceases to be: and in the absence of the object the subject ceases to be. I(subject) am defined by not-I(object). Not-I (object)is defined by I(subject).
[/quote]

Hi Belinda,

Yes, sounds like we are on the same page!

[Skepdick]

Again, if you are able to convince yourself that "trends" in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice and on and on and on and on confirm that the morality of these issues has been established objectively, fine, good for you.

That is simply not good enough for me. It doesn't make the points raised by both sides in these historical conflagrations go away. Only God, in my view, is able to frame these disputes in such a way that on Judgment Day your own personal opinions are evaluated "once and for all".

You seem really misguided about the whole thing. What do you mean by "Good enough for you"? You have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is and isn't objective? That defeats the point of objectivity, don't you think?

How can you be a "moral relativist" yet have standards with respect to morality? Surely if morality is objective then it's not up to you if it's objective.
I have asked you one simple question and you have ignored it over and over.

If the immorality of capital punishment has not been objectively established then what is causing the historical decrease in capital punishment?

It is in the realm of wants that both the means and the ends can be open to contention.

I don't see why. Since there are infinitely many possible means to any particular end. If you are focused on the end (your needs being met) and not on any particular way of having yoru needs met then the only reason you might contend on any particular means is if you are a stubborn ass.

Why what I want rather than what you want?

What a stupid question. We want the same thing. Well-being.

Especially when what I want is against what you want.

You don't want well-being? OK. I can help you with that too. Where would you like me to dump your body?

I want to live in a world where I have access to guns, you want to live in a world where gun ownership is forbidden.

I own plenty guns - they are just a means to an end. You haven't told me what the end is.

So, to resolve this deontologically, let's go to the historical trends?

You've invented a conflict where none exists. There is nothing to resolve.

Well, if that's where you want to go here. But my point is that the arguments we choose to embrace or to ignore are rooted largely in the profoundly problematic subjective parameters of dasein, derived from the particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts in which we were thrown at birth. And in which we live our lives.

I think you have a hearing/understanding problem. I told you that ALL arguments are contingent. Which is why I don't give a shit about the practice/tradition of arguing.

Clearly, the manner in which we construe "objective morality" here is very, very different.

Clearly. So what do you even mean when you use that phrase? What are you refering to when you speak about "morality"?

If it's not objective then what exactly are you talking about? Do you even know?

Of course objective morality may exist.

This is a weird premise. I have already told you that I reject the object/subject distinction. Everything that exists is objective.

Either morality is objective, or morality doesn't exist.

Otherwise you are using the word "morality" in some sense that I don't understand - explain it to me.

No, "here and now" it seems reasonable to me that it cannot be established beyond all doubt that a God, the God does not exist.

That's a moot point. Existence cannot be established with arguments. Existence is always assumed/defined.

Do you exist? Or are "you" just a bunch of atoms/molecules interacting?

Something that, in my opinion, you have not even come close to establishing.

Of course I haven't! I can't. I don't have no intellectual instrument available to achieve the task you have set before me. Becase arguments don't establish anything!.

Which argument would establish that this is blue?
Which argument would establish that this is red?

ALL arguments are insufficient!

Right, like it is necessarily true that you are not "trapped' in your own set of assumptions.

It is true. I don't reason from premises - only idiot-philosophers and Mathematicians do that in non-axiomatic systems such as the universe we live in.

I reason backwards from conclusions.

To me, you are basically a run-of-the-mill objectivist.

To me you are confused.

[iambiguous]

I copy Skepdick:

Human needs are universal. We all must subsist. We all must have food and water and shelter. We all must be able to defend ourselves against enemies. We all must sustain a community conducive to the reproduction of the community itself. Here the squabbles tend to revolve more around means. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. The emphasis on "I" or on "we".

Not sure what you mean. Skepdick didn't post this, I did.

Sartre's existentialism describes the Dasein thing (being there in an environment) as a tension between the individual and the collective. You look at another conscious being and see them looking back at you so that there are two subjects of experience. But two subjects is impossible QED. So inevitably there is tension.

Yes, an individual is adventitiously "thrown" at birth into a particular world. A particular environment historically and culturally and in terms of his or her own uniquely personal experiences.

But the relationship between "I" and "we" changes over time. Many rooted it in God. Marx rooted it in "political economy". Ayn Rand rooted it in Reason.

"Hell is other people" in the sense that they often objectify you. I take it further though in suggesting that most of us objectify ourselves. Most come to think that there is a Real Me -- a core self, a soul -- that is able to become in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

They then become moral objectivists and divide up the world between "one of us" [the rational and the good] and "one of them" [the irrational and the evil].

Me, "I" am instead "fractured and fragmented". My moral philosophy revolves around this assumption:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

[iambiguous]

Again, if you are able to convince yourself that "trends" in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice and on and on and on and on confirm that the morality of these issues has been established objectively, fine, good for you.

That is simply not good enough for me. It doesn't make the points raised by both sides in these historical conflagrations go away. Only God, in my view, is able to frame these disputes in such a way that on Judgment Day your own personal opinions are evaluated "once and for all".

You seem really misguided about the whole thing.

In regard to particular behaviors embedded in particular sets of circumstances, when someone suggests this of me, what I hear is "you don't share my own point of view, therefore you are misguided".

What do you mean by "Good enough for you"? You have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is and isn't objective? That defeats the point of objectivity, don't you think?

Just the opposite. What defeats the point of moral objectivity is the fact that in regard to the "conflicting goods" I noted above, subjective assessments all up and down the political spectrum are such that no one seems able to concoct either the optimal point of view or the most rational.

Why what I want rather than what you want?

What a stupid question. We want the same thing. Well-being.

Joe's sense of well-being revolves around being able to purchase the guns he wants. His "end": to protect himself. Jim's sense of well-being revolves around living in a community where there are no guns. His "end": to stop gun violence.

So, what is the optimal or the only rational sense of well-being here? Well, let's check in with you so you can consult the "historical trends". And then right on down the line: "capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice..."

Just establish the historical trends to know for sure what you are morally obligated to think and to feel. Categorically and imperatively as it were.

Of course objective morality may exist.

This is a weird premise. I have already told you that I reject the object/subject distinction. Everything that exists is objective.

Either morality is objective, or morality doesn't exist.

Otherwise you are using the word "morality" in some sense that I don't understand - explain it to me.

There you go again. Asserting something as true about objective morality as though others don't have the option of disagreeing with you. That, should they dare, they have no one to blame but themselves for being wrong. So, if you're in one town and they execute prisoners. That's objective morality. Or if you're in another and they don't. That's objective morality. Even though within each town individuals may embrace opposite points of view. You point out the "trends" in each town to finally confirm for them the one true objective morality. Ever and always wholly in sync with your own subjective political prejudices.

Then this obsession with the inadequacy of arguments. Rather than the manner in which [out in the real world] arguments will be made -- reasons will be given -- to either allow or not allow capital punishment in any particular community. Arguments and reasons which, given one or another set of premises, are perfectly reasonable.

Here you reason "backward from conclusions". In other words, you come to a conclusion about a political conflagration like capital punishment and then come up with the reasons you need to confirm your own assessment of the historical trends.

[Skepdick]

In regard to particular behaviors embedded in particular sets of circumstances, when someone suggests this of me, what I hear is "you don't share my own point of view, therefore you are misguided".

No. You are misguided because you are pretending not to share ANY point if view. Not even mine. In your own words - you are "drawn and quartered".

As a self-proclaimed relativist you should be climbing upon every fence I point out to you.

Just the opposite. What defeats the point of moral objectivity is the fact that in regard to the "conflicting goods" I noted above, subjective assessments all up and down the political spectrum are such that no one seems able to concoct either the optimal point of view or the most rational.

Yes! That's a feature, not a bug. Everybody concocts whatever point of view they concoct. And then people converge upon some points of view, simultaneously as people abandon some points of view. People change their minds - persuasion happens.

Yet your point of view seems to insist that since nobody can concoct an optimal point of view then all points of view must be equally sub-optimal.

Joe's sense of well-being revolves around being able to purchase the guns he wants. His "end": to protect himself. Jim's sense of well-being revolves around living in a community where there are no guns. His "end": to stop gun violence.

But we are not talking about the sense of well-being? We are talking about actual state of being well! Free from harm. Free from violence. Free from all the things that make you unwell.

And so it can be trivially demonstrated to Jim that even though Switzerland has 40 times higher "gun violence" than the UK, Switzerland has HALF the overall violence rate of the UK. Switzerland is a safer country than the UK.

The Swiss experience beter overall wellbeing (with respect to violence) than the Brits.

Soon as you get Jim to navigate around his misconception he will realise that he wants what Joe wants.

So, what is the optimal or the only rational sense of well-being here? Well, let's check in with you so you can consult the "historical trends". And then right on down the line: "capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, the role of government, human sexuality, social justice..."

Just establish the historical trends to know for sure what you are morally obligated to think and to feel. Categorically and imperatively as it were.

The historical trends show that the world has become a significantly more pleasant place to live in SINCE guns were invented.
The historical trends show that human well-being was significantly worse BEFORE guns were infented.
The historical trends will show you that since women in the USA have been allowed to carry guns a number of violent crimes (including rape) have drastically decreased.

It's not far-fetched a reasoning to realise that if you have an effective tool to actively prevent harm to your person then your well-being will INCREASE.

There you go again. Asserting something as true about objective morality as though others don't have the option of disagreeing with you.

You are 100% welcome to disagree. But if morality is not objective then morality doesn't exist.

So if morality doesn't exist - what the hell are you even talking about when you use that word?

That, should they dare, they have no one to blame but themselves for being wrong. So, if you're in one town and they execute prisoners. That's objective morality.

Nobody is blaming anybody. If I started talking to you about unicorns, but unicorns aren't real you would question my sanity too.

So I am asking you whether you think morality exists. I

Or if you're in another and they don't. That's objective morality. Even though within each town individuals may embrace opposite points of view. You point out the "trends" in each town to finally confirm for them the one true objective morality. Ever and always wholly in sync with your own subjective political prejudices.

Absolutely. IF morality doesn't exist then every single person can hold whatever viewpoint they want. In the absence of any moral standards nothing is forbidden and nothing is expected from you. Do whatever you want!

Walk up to your neighbour and kill their cat. Steal their car. Burn down his house.

You are a relativist. That's just your point of view!

Then this obsession with the inadequacy of arguments. Rather than the manner in which [out in the real world] arguments will be made -- reasons will be given -- to either allow or not allow capital punishment in any particular community. Arguments and reasons which, given one or another set of premises, are perfectly reasonable.

Precisely!

I am sure your argument for burning down your neighbour's house, killing their cat and stealing their car will be reasonable too.

It's just your point of view! You are simply expressing it. In words AND in actions.

Here you reason "backward from conclusions". In other words, you come to a conclusion about a political conflagration like capital punishment and then come up with the reasons you need to confirm your own assessment of the historical trends.

Observe you have still avoided the difficult question.

Why is there LESS capital punishment (per capita) in 2022 than there was in 1522. If capital punishment is "rooted in dasein" then what is causing this decrease?

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: If morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - then morality doesn't exist, and you can do what you want.

False. And anyway, if true, a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

[Belinda]

I copy Skepdick:

Human needs are universal. We all must subsist. We all must have food and water and shelter. We all must be able to defend ourselves against enemies. We all must sustain a community conducive to the reproduction of the community itself. Here the squabbles tend to revolve more around means. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. The emphasis on "I" or on "we".

Not sure what you mean. Skepdick didn't post this, I did.

Sartre's existentialism describes the Dasein thing (being there in an environment) as a tension between the individual and the collective. You look at another conscious being and see them looking back at you so that there are two subjects of experience. But two subjects is impossible QED. So inevitably there is tension.

Yes, an individual is adventitiously "thrown" at birth into a particular world. A particular environment historically and culturally and in terms of his or her own uniquely personal experiences.

But the relationship between "I" and "we" changes over time. Many rooted it in God. Marx rooted it in "political economy". Ayn Rand rooted it in Reason.

"Hell is other people" in the sense that they often objectify you. I take it further though in suggesting that most of us objectify ourselves. Most come to think that there is a Real Me -- a core self, a soul -- that is able to become in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

They then become moral objectivists and divide up the world between "one of us" [the rational and the good] and "one of them" [the irrational and the evil].

Me, "I" am instead "fractured and fragmented". My moral philosophy revolves around this assumption:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I am sorry I attributed to Skepdick that bit about basic and ubiquitous needs ,which you wrote, and with which I agree. I also agree with you about the relevance of historical world view. The Reformation began an avalanche of change in world view ending with the high moral status of the individual.I agree with you about tension between Dasein and objectification, including my belief about who I myself am.

So what is human nature?

Freudian id is the actual power which overcomes objectification and also harmonises with Dasein. Freudian id , the innocent and uncorrupted human nature ,overcomes ideas of both ego and superego and also guides through the mazes of Dasein. One useful rule of thumb is the further he departed from the id he was born with the more he became evil.

[Skepdick]

Premise: If morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - then morality doesn't exist, and you can do what you want.

False.

Fallacy fallacy. The premise that we can do what we want is objectively true within the context/constraints imposed upon us by the limits of physics. A fact. It's the default position and requires no justification.

The claim that something obviously true is "false" reaches forthe heights of intellectual dishonesty and obscurantism. It's a blatant lie.

What objective mechanism exists to prevent us from doing whatever we want?

And anyway, if true, a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

Define "undesirable" consequences.

The consequence of burn down your house, kill your cat and steal your car is desirable to anyone who chooses to burn down your house, kill your cat and steal your car.

What objective mechanism prevents them from from burning down your house, kill your cat and stealing your car?

[Peter Holmes]

A premise about morality is not a premise about physics.

There are social constraints on doing just what we want, and rewards for socially approved behaviour. It's not hard.