the queen is dead

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:43 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:14 am Monarchs are no more and no less grasping than other social elites. The special benefit of modern constitutional monarchy is that tradition hand in hand with established,liberal religion exert a calming centring influence on agitators and the very greedy. Primogeniture within reason is as good a system as most others for selecting a constitutional monarch.
The Windsors as a family seem to have a tradition of education and service rather in the old chivalric way. which is nice for an elite family to have. One can think of other elites that are undesirable in these respects.
At least other elites have to pay tax within the law.

The Windsors have never done an honest days work in their fucking lives. The only service they have done is self-service.
Anyone who has to be observed admiring many floral tributes, and shaking hundreds of hands on the sad occasion of their mother's death deserves to be paid for that service.

The late Queen spent hours reading and understanding the parliamentary papers in her daily red box, a quite large attache case. She gave up her right to publicly expressing opinions and personal feelings when she became queen. She was a public servant who was worth her weight in gold for seventy years.

If she's to be criticised for being hugely rich then it's huge personal wealth we need to criticise, not one of the most worthy rich personages in history.
You are being ridiculous.
SHe had ZERO input into parliament, thankfully but the one time she was called upon to act as head of state she totally fucked it up by allowing Boris to prorogue parliament.
Aside from that she read out was was written for her at the state opening one a year.
She was worth her weight in shit, and her presence is an embarrassment to deomcracy.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:41 pm Okay, but what all of this is for you [not political] doesn't make what it is for others ["my way or the highway" political] go away.
I don't think it makes other people's views go away.
There is only so much control we have over how others react to our points of view.
I don't think I have much control at all over that. I wasn't saying that my views override other people's views or views of my opinions/preferences/reactions.

I just see no reason to define my reactions the way they would.

Do you think you should define your preferences the way other people would? Is that how you define them?
After all, particular Jews back in Nazi Germany may have insisted that being a Jew wasn't political to them.
If they thought that would protect them, they were making a very serious practical error. But they weren't wrong to not consider it political themselves. If they somehow thought their opinion about it would protect them from fanatics, that is a different issue. I have no illusion that my viewing my not grieving the death of the Queen as political somehow disarms the people who loved the Queen and think I am fucked up. You seem to be drawing a false conclusion about what I have said or believe.

But again. I am aware the people politicize all sorts of things, some of which I do not politisize. I do have reactions and preferences that I consider political. Others I do not. I don't think I need to define them as political, those that I don't, because other people do.

The Catholic church views my masturbating as religious issue and a sin. I don't. It's not a religious issue for me. I don't view it as either moral or immoral. I don't let them define WHAT that act is, even as a category. To be clear. I am not saying I think they are wrong about masturbation. I am saying that while they categorize it as a religious issue, I do not. That's their category for it.

Do you think if you masturbate you are performing a negative religious act or a postive religious act? Do you decide that you must view it that way because The Catholic Church views it that way?

And, since I seem to be taken to mean things I do not. I do not believe that my not categorizing it that way leads to the Catholic Church changing it's views on masturbation.

I don't understand why the way other people categorize things you must agree to that categorization. Why would you do that to yourself? I understand noticing their categorization. I understand that if they are dangerous, you note that too. I just don't see why you decide to view your reactions or actions as political if, well, you don't view them that way.
But it's everywhere regarding reactions to Queen Elizabeth. People react to her in my view not because philosophers have provided us with the most rational manner in which to react to her, but because existentially their individual lives predispose them subjectively to react as they do. But, I believe, many objectivists don't want to go there because if they do their own precious "my way of the highway" Self may begin to crumble: "what if what I do believe about the queen is only an existential contraption rooted in dasein?"
I really don't expect philosophers to provide me with my reaction to Elizabeth's death. That said, I am sure there are people who do not want to mull over in the least the why they feel and think the way they do. I would guess there are some who could look at that and be ok. I don't mean they are moral antirealists but they might be able to face those roots to varying degrees. But in any case, I am not opposing your idea that objectivists may well cling to their 'right' answers. They do. I am not challenging that. I am challenging the idea that they or you get to tell me that my not being sad about her death is political. That I am having a political reaction. Of course some will define it that way, I do not deny it. But I see no reason to accept their definition. To say that a reaction I have that I do not consider political is political because you or they say it is. I won't try to take away your view or theirs. I may, as I did, just say I don't think it is.
Here, again, it always depends on being around those who insist that it is important to have a political opinion about it...and that it damn well better be the same as their own.
Is that what you felt, that I should have viewed it as political? It was you telling me it was.
when the most important point is that our reaction to it is a profoundly problematic reflection of the existential parameters of the life we lived rather than something that can be pinned down with any precision philosophically.
Okay, but in regard to Queen Elizabeth and King Charles, it's much easier to avoid making it about politics. Why? Because the monarchy in England is largely ceremonial. It has no substantial political power. But what if it wasn't and it did?
That would be another situation. You told me it was not important that I didn't view it as political. I say it is important to me. You justify your previous telling me what I asserted wasn't important, by creating a hypothetical scenario. I'm objecting to your objectivist (seeming at least) assertion that what I asserted was not important and what was important in fact happens to be something important to you. Fine, that's important to you, but you couched as simply being important period.
And that still doesn't stop the objectivists among us from acting as though how they react to this politically toothless monarchy wasn't but one more One True Path.
Of course. I'll let you know when I think I have the magical power to stop them doing this. Until then please assume I do not think anything I said or felt had this power.
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:35 pmBut, for me it is important not to label things that are not political, political.
Again: not political to you.
Sure. But the weird thing is it sounds like you think that you and I should view things as political if other people do even if we don't.

You also seemed to be responding as if I thought I could control others, stop their objectivism, demonstrate they were wrong, etc. I really don't know where that comes from. Shit, I am hoping to get my job extended in January. I have a lot of power issues to take on at that rather humble level before I change the entire planet's mind about issues they hold dear.
Note to the objectivists among us:

Please take this up with him -- her? -- yourself.
I was talking to you. I was talking to you about my beliefs and yours. If there is a point your don't want to respond to, fine, of course. But their answer or response was not the one I was seeking. It seems, at times in this conversation, like they determine what you think or that your thinking does not matter. If they say it is political, it is. If you view it as not political but others do, it is political. And yes, it is political for them.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

People keep talking about her 'wonderful wicked sense of humour'. She certainly hid it well, and whatever sense of humour she had was generally at someone else's expense (apparently a family trait). How could someone with a 'wonderful sense of humour' appear completely emotionless for 70 years? It doesn't make any sense or even seem possible. And who would have led her to believe that being the queen meant she was never allowed to show a single emotion for the rest of her life? :? England has the best actors in the world. Surely there would have been 'someone' available to teach her how to read something out loud without sounding like a robot (a robot devoid of any human inflections). Stephen Hawking's robotic voice had a far more natural, human sound to it.
She wasn't as bad as Margaret though. Margaret was monster.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:22 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:43 am

At least other elites have to pay tax within the law.

The Windsors have never done an honest days work in their fucking lives. The only service they have done is self-service.
Anyone who has to be observed admiring many floral tributes, and shaking hundreds of hands on the sad occasion of their mother's death deserves to be paid for that service.

The late Queen spent hours reading and understanding the parliamentary papers in her daily red box, a quite large attache case. She gave up her right to publicly expressing opinions and personal feelings when she became queen. She was a public servant who was worth her weight in gold for seventy years.

If she's to be criticised for being hugely rich then it's huge personal wealth we need to criticise, not one of the most worthy rich personages in history.
You are being ridiculous.
SHe had ZERO input into parliament, thankfully but the one time she was called upon to act as head of state she totally fucked it up by allowing Boris to prorogue parliament.
Aside from that she read out was was written for her at the state opening one a year.
She was worth her weight in shit, and her presence is an embarrassment to deomcracy.
You rationalise your feelings and I rationalise mine. You sound as if you are happy with a change to republican Britain, while I am afraid of such a change but fear it will come.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:46 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:22 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:07 pm

Anyone who has to be observed admiring many floral tributes, and shaking hundreds of hands on the sad occasion of their mother's death deserves to be paid for that service.

The late Queen spent hours reading and understanding the parliamentary papers in her daily red box, a quite large attache case. She gave up her right to publicly expressing opinions and personal feelings when she became queen. She was a public servant who was worth her weight in gold for seventy years.

If she's to be criticised for being hugely rich then it's huge personal wealth we need to criticise, not one of the most worthy rich personages in history.
You are being ridiculous.
SHe had ZERO input into parliament, thankfully but the one time she was called upon to act as head of state she totally fucked it up by allowing Boris to prorogue parliament.
Aside from that she read out what was written for her at the state opening once a year.
She was worth her weight in shit, and her presence is an embarrassment to democracy.
You rationalise your feelings and I rationalise mine. You sound as if you are happy with a change to republican Britain, while I am afraid of such a change but fear it will come.
I might be rationalising. But at least I have not deluded myself that the Monarch ever had a day to day input into politics, as you seemed to think. She was an expensive white elephant whose presence justifies privileged and class. Jabob Rees-Mogg is the logical conclusion of the absurdity of the ideology that the monarch presents.
Do you think it a good idea to have a class of people who can pass on political power to their children regardless of talent, capacity or moral rectitude? Because the Monarchy and the Lords which it supports and the sheepish masses that mindlessly follow are the result of this medieval insanity.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:32 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:46 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:22 pm

You are being ridiculous.
SHe had ZERO input into parliament, thankfully but the one time she was called upon to act as head of state she totally fucked it up by allowing Boris to prorogue parliament.
Aside from that she read out what was written for her at the state opening once a year.
She was worth her weight in shit, and her presence is an embarrassment to democracy.
You rationalise your feelings and I rationalise mine. You sound as if you are happy with a change to republican Britain, while I am afraid of such a change but fear it will come.
I might be rationalising. But at least I have not deluded myself that the Monarch ever had a day to day input into politics, as you seemed to think. She was an expensive white elephant whose presence justifies privileged and class. Jabob Rees-Mogg is the logical conclusion of the absurdity of the ideology that the monarch presents.
Do you think it a good idea to have a class of people who can pass on political power to their children regardless of talent, capacity or moral rectitude? Because the Monarchy and the Lords which it supports and the sheepish masses that mindlessly follow are the result of this medieval insanity.
I always hoped and sought evidence that the Queen was not a stupid aristocrat like so many of the others. As for the amount of work the monarch is burdened with, together with living up to being a symbol of British, I believe there's no conspiracy to lie about her actual workload of which we are apprised by the media.
I support the cause of redistribution of land including the seabed. I deplore the inheritance of the huge amount of land that the Windsors inherited. And I also deplore the purchase of too much land by foreigners and corporations.
Is it necessary that a king cannot be revered as a symbolic centre of proper pride unless the said king is enormously rich? I don't think so! I guess Elizabeth II would have done her sworn duty even if all her wealth were confiscated.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by promethean75 »

yes, what is symbolized by the monarchy is a very expensive quasi-religious psychological fantasy the working tax payers end up paying for. there really is no legitimate need for such a fixture... which is all it is in the modern world with the rise of parliamentarism. prior to that, royalty had executive political power and were at least doing something and had some sort of function.

but this British monarchy stuff is just childishness and a testament to the mentality and intellect of a peoples still in 800 A.D.

And u guys need to lay off Liz II because she wuz made to do all that fake stuff. They made her act like that goddammit!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:32 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:46 am
You rationalise your feelings and I rationalise mine. You sound as if you are happy with a change to republican Britain, while I am afraid of such a change but fear it will come.
I might be rationalising. But at least I have not deluded myself that the Monarch ever had a day to day input into politics, as you seemed to think. She was an expensive white elephant whose presence justifies privileged and class. Jabob Rees-Mogg is the logical conclusion of the absurdity of the ideology that the monarch presents.
Do you think it a good idea to have a class of people who can pass on political power to their children regardless of talent, capacity or moral rectitude? Because the Monarchy and the Lords which it supports and the sheepish masses that mindlessly follow are the result of this medieval insanity.
I always hoped and sought evidence that the Queen was not a stupid aristocrat like so many of the others. As for the amount of work the monarch is burdened with, together with living up to being a symbol of British, I believe there's no conspiracy to lie about her actual workload of which we are apprised by the media.
I support the cause of redistribution of land including the seabed. I deplore the inheritance of the huge amount of land that the Windsors inherited. And I also deplore the purchase of too much land by foreigners and corporations.
Is it necessary that a king cannot be revered as a symbolic centre of proper pride unless the said king is enormously rich? I don't think so! I guess Elizabeth II would have done her sworn duty even if all her wealth were confiscated.
You are in denial
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Sculptor »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:23 pm yes, what is symbolized by the monarchy is a very expensive quasi-religious psychological fantasy the working tax payers end up paying for. there really is no legitimate need for such a fixture... which is all it is in the modern world with the rise of parliamentarism. prior to that, royalty had executive political power and were at least doing something and had some sort of function.

but this British monarchy stuff is just childishness and a testament to the mentality and intellect of a peoples still in 800 A.D.

And u guys need to lay off Liz II because she wuz made to do all that fake stuff. They made her act like that goddammit!
No I aint' gonna lay off Liz.
SHe always had the choice to abdicate.
People have to be held responsible for their crimes.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by promethean75 »

bro u don't abdicate when you're a young and aspiring voluptuous twenty six year old british debutante daisy with a color-note organ who's under enoooormous pressha by her family and peers to accept the obligation with honor and all that stuff.

i can't believe u would expect Liz II to abdicate. such an unthinkable insensitivity to the existential circumstances of her life, her age, and her beliefs, values, etc., all of which are unique to Liz II's dasein.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:41 pm Okay, but what all of this is for you [not political] doesn't make what it is for others ["my way or the highway" political] go away.
I don't think it makes other people's views go away.
That's my point. You insist that your views about the queen are not political but they are so fanatically pro or anti the monarchy that anything anyone says about it is deemed political.

Again, my point in regard to value judgments always revolves around the objectivists among us. This and the fact that, in my view, how you and others here come to think about the queen is rooted largely in dasein.
There is only so much control we have over how others react to our points of view.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pmI don't think I have much control at all over that. I wasn't saying that my views override other people's views or views of my opinions/preferences/reactions.
Well, for many Jews back then, control of the situation was not something they had either. But once the objectivists take power everything becomes political. It's just that in regard to the monarchy in England today, it has no real political power at all. So, given that, how much weight can be given to our thinking about it?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pmDo you think you should define your preferences the way other people would? Is that how you define them?
Again, my argument here revolves not around how we define our preferences [or what those preferences even are] but how preferences of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.
After all, particular Jews back in Nazi Germany may have insisted that being a Jew wasn't political to them.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pmIf they thought that would protect them, they were making a very serious practical error. But they weren't wrong to not consider it political themselves. If they somehow thought their opinion about it would protect them from fanatics, that is a different issue. I have no illusion that my viewing my not grieving the death of the Queen as political somehow disarms the people who loved the Queen and think I am fucked up. You seem to be drawing a false conclusion about what I have said or believe.
To me, discussions of this sort always unfold in a particular context. So, sure, the Jews reaction to Hitler and the Nazis back then and anyone's reaction to the queen's life and death here and now are dramatically different.

Everything always revolves around the extent to which personal opinions [political or otherwise] are construed by those in power to be either acceptable or unacceptable.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pmThe Catholic church views my masturbating as religious issue and a sin. I don't. It's not a religious issue for me. I don't view it as either moral or immoral. I don't let them define WHAT that act is, even as a category. To be clear. I am not saying I think they are wrong about masturbation. I am saying that while they categorize it as a religious issue, I do not. That's their category for it.
Still, had your life been very different, you might be here defending the Catholic Church. You yourself might deem it to be a religious issue. And, really, what can the Pope and Catholic hierarchy actually do to those who masturbate.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm I don't understand why the way other people categorize things you must agree to that categorization. Why would you do that to yourself? I understand noticing their categorization. I understand that if they are dangerous, you note that too. I just don't see why you decide to view your reactions or actions as political if, well, you don't view them that way.
Because down through the ages in different cultures and communities children were indoctrinated to embody all manner of religious and political dogmas. And then as adults they have experiences that either reinforce the categories or persude them to chuck them. That's the part I root existentially in dasein. In conflicting goods. In political economy.

Thus...
But it's everywhere regarding reactions to Queen Elizabeth. People react to her in my view not because philosophers have provided us with the most rational manner in which to react to her, but because existentially their individual lives predispose them subjectively to react as they do. But, I believe, many objectivists don't want to go there because if they do their own precious "my way of the highway" Self may begin to crumble: "what if what I do believe about the queen is only an existential contraption rooted in dasein?"
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pmI really don't expect philosophers to provide me with my reaction to Elizabeth's death. That said, I am sure there are people who do not want to mull over in the least the why they feel and think the way they do. I would guess there are some who could look at that and be ok. I don't mean they are moral antirealists but they might be able to face those roots to varying degrees.
Here I tend to push philosophy aside and construe the reaction of many -- the objectivists among us -- as embedded/embodied more in what I call the "psychology of objectivism". One possible trajectory of which is noted in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm But in any case, I am not opposing your idea that objectivists may well cling to their 'right' answers. They do. I am not challenging that. I am challenging the idea that they or you get to tell me that my not being sad about her death is political. That I am having a political reaction. Of course some will define it that way, I do not deny it. But I see no reason to accept their definition. To say that a reaction I have that I do not consider political is political because you or they say it is. I won't try to take away your view or theirs. I may, as I did, just say I don't think it is.
All I can do here is to suggest that had your own life been different you might be here arguing instead that such views are inherently political. That, in other words, using the tools at their disposal, philosophers seem unable to pin down one way or the other how all rational human beings ought to react to Queen Elizabeth's life and death. And that, from my frame of mind, is a profoundly problematic existential conviction...a mere "personal opinion".

To wit:
Here, again, it always depends on being around those who insist that it is important to have a political opinion about it...and that it damn well better be the same as their own.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm Is that what you felt, that I should have viewed it as political? It was you telling me it was.
Note where [above] you think that I am arguing that. Quite the contrary. There does not appear to me to be a philosophical resolution in regard to anchoring "I" in the is/ought world to an objective truth when confronting "conflicting goods" of this sort.

I never argued that, in regard to you, it is "not important that [you] didn't view it as political". But: such things can become very important. Why? Because there are any number of objectivists among us who insist on making them important. It's just that in regard to the monarchy in England today there are few consequences attached to our "personal opinions". Maybe a family member or a friend might shun you for disagreeing with them about it. But it's nowhere near as consequential as being a Jew back in Nazi Germany.

But imagine 300 years ago in England making disparaging comments about the King or Queen. You insist, however, they are just your own "personal opinions".

As for this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm But the weird thing is it sounds like you think that you and I should view things as political if other people do even if we don't.
...you are clearly not understanding my point here. But that doesn't surprise me. Not many do.

On the other hand, I asked the objectivists among us to respond to you because they do come down hard -- one way or the other -- on conflicting goods of this sort. Maybe they can explain to you why you are obligated to think as they do about the queen's death.

Or abortion. Or the buying and selling of bazookas.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Not that you'll pay attention...
Maybe they can explain to you why you are obligated to think as they do about the queen's death.
I'm not aware of any moral realist who sez anyone has to feel anything about the death of a stranger (or anyone).

Can you cite any moral realist -- in-forum or out -- who sez you ought to or must feel or think a certain way about the death of a stranger (or anyone)? I'd be surprised if you could. Why? Cuz it ain't a moral issue. But, please, prove me wrong.

*
Or abortion.
At least from the end of the 12th week: it, more often than not, is murder.
buying and selling of bazookas.
Property is property. If I want it, can find a seller and meet his price, I'll have it, and, as long as I ain't blowin' you and yours up with it, my bazooka is none of your business.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:23 pm yes, what is symbolized by the monarchy is a very expensive quasi-religious psychological fantasy the working tax payers end up paying for. there really is no legitimate need for such a fixture... which is all it is in the modern world with the rise of parliamentarism. prior to that, royalty had executive political power and were at least doing something and had some sort of function.

but this British monarchy stuff is just childishness and a testament to the mentality and intellect of a peoples still in 800 A.D.

And u guys need to lay off Liz II because she wuz made to do all that fake stuff. They made her act like that goddammit!
Quasi-religious fantasies are worth the money. What Queen Elizabeth symbolises is worth paying for. There is no danger Queen Elizabeth will be mistaken for deity , as her human foibles have been well recorded .
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:33 pm Not that you'll pay attention...
Maybe they can explain to you why you are obligated to think as they do about the queen's death.
I'm not aware of any moral realist who sez anyone has to feel anything about the death of a stranger (or anyone).

Can you cite any moral realist -- in-forum or out -- who sez you ought to or must feel or think a certain way about the death of a stranger (or anyone)? I'd be surprised if you could. Why? Cuz it ain't a moral issue. But, please, prove me wrong.
This guy again! :wink:

"Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately." wiki

Moral realist? How about the moral objectivist?

And, in regard to anyone's life and death, how exactly will a moral realist react? As opposed to the moral objectivist.

And how exactly are the convictions of the moral realist any less rooted existentially in dasein?

Take for example Donald Trump. Suppose tomorrow he drops dead of a heart attack. Or he's assassinated. How might a moral realist react to that?

Any moral realists here among us care to take that on?
Or abortion.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:33 pm At least from the end of the 12th week: it, more often than not, is murder.
Ah, so this is a moral realist's position as opposed to a moral objectivist? In other words, given this...

"Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately."

...what he asserts to be true is simply to be understood by all rational human beings as necessarily/inherently in sync with the "objective feature of an unwanted pregnancy".
buying and selling of bazookas.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:33 pm Property is property. If I want it, can find a seller and meet his price, I'll have it, and, as long as I ain't blowin' you and yours up with it, my bazooka is none of your business.
Same thing. You either entirely agree with his premises and conclusions in regard to bazookas [or hand grenades or claymore mines or chemical/biological weapons or a dirty bomb] as property or you are necessarily/inherently wrong.

Come on, don't let this one fool you. He is about as hardcore a moral objectivist as they come here. He even has his very own private and personal God...a God who created him to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

On the other hand, ask him to note examples of where he was once wrong in the past about issues like this. He has, in fact, admitted to me that, indeed, in the past, he was wrong about the "big stuff".

Only he won't cite any examples of this. It's "personal".

And, in having been wrong in the past, he is admitting that he may well be wrong about important issues in the present.

Only, come on, we know that's bullshit. You simply don't run across many who are as arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian as he is in regard to value judgments.

Unless, of course, you count Immanual Can.

Different God though.


Next up: see henry configure into "Mr. Snippet" and/or "Mr. Wiggle".
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

This guy again! :wink:
Yep.
in regard to anyone's life and death, how exactly will a moral realist react?
*Depends on who died, doesn't it? If my 16 year passes, I'll be devastated, but his death won't, nor should it, move you. My kid is a stranger to you. It would be nice if you felt sumthin' but it ain't required. (and: moral realism = moral objectivism...just sayin').
And how exactly are the convictions of the moral realist any less rooted existentially in dasein?
Cuz dasein ain't real. You believe everything a person is comes thru indoctrination. You're wrong. If you, for example, were nuthin' but the sum of indoctrination, then how can you be fractured? Sumthin' of you, sumthin' coherent and consistent, must be other than indoctrinated product. You may be uncertain and untethered, or lack grounding, but there's a you, a coherent and consistent sumthin', that can look at your circumstance and find it lacking. So your all-encompassin' dasein is manure.
Take for example Donald Trump. Suppose tomorrow he drops dead of a heart attack. Or he's assassinated. How might a moral realist react to that?
Depends on the moral realist, doesn't it? Some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug then fish around for another hand grenade. It ain't dasein: it's just perspective and investment.
Any moral realists here among us care to take that on?
Just did.
Ah, so this is a moral realist's position as opposed to a moral objectivist? In other words, given this...

"Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately."

...what he asserts to be true is simply to be understood by all rational human beings as necessarily/inherently in sync with the "objective feature of an unwanted pregnancy".
What I assert is: At least from the end of the 12th week, what a woman carries is a person. And killin' a person, except in self-defense/defense of another, is a no-no. If you disagree: you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy.
Same thing. You either entirely agree with his premises and conclusions in regard to bazookas [or hand grenades or claymore mines or chemical/biological weapons or a dirty bomb] as property or you are necessarily/inherently wrong.
Nope. If you don't agree that a man is free and has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property then you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy. Get it right.
He is about as hardcore a moral objectivist as they come here.
Yep. I'm an unrepentant moral realist...probably the worst one here.
He even has his very own private and personal God
Oh, He's yours too. Don't worry: He's either not around or He's indifferent or He's watchin', voyeur-like, or He passed away. You won't have to take a knee.
a God who created him to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
He created us all as free wills, to do as we each choose (and to bear the consequences of those choices). We are reasoning creatures, but not rational, no. We're moral creatures but we can choose to lie, cheat, steal, slave, rape, and murder (mind them consequences). As for nature: itself just clockwork, orderly...that didn't come about without direction.
On the other hand, ask him to note examples of where he was once wrong in the past about issues like this. He has, in fact, admitted to me that, indeed, in the past, he was wrong about the "big stuff".
I was wrong to be an atheist and nihilist. How's that for big stuff?
Only he won't cite any examples of this. It's "personal".
Just did.
And, in having been wrong in the past, he is admitting that he may well be wrong about important issues in the present.
Yep. I could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
Only, come on, we know that's bullshit. You simply don't run across many who are as arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian as he is in regard to value judgments.
Oh, I'm awful: I demand each recognize himself, and the other guy, as free with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. I'm a friggin' tyrant.
Next up: see henry configure into "Mr. Snippet" and/or "Mr. Wiggle".
Wrong again.
Post Reply