moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 1:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:49 pmYou can imagine anything you want.
Imagination precedes everything man creates,
Not in this context.
VA's imaginings on these points are gratuitious and unanchored, a kind of imagining that has no relation to reality or the facts, and in this case, even runs contrary to the truth.

That is not the same sort of "imagination" that goes into invention. Inventive "imagination" always starts with the facts, and works toward the possibilities imaginable from those facts.
Walker
Posts: 14247
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 3:22 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 1:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:49 pmYou can imagine anything you want.
Imagination precedes everything man creates,
Not in this context.
VA's imaginings on these points are gratuitious and unanchored, a kind of imagining that has no relation to reality or the facts, and in this case, even runs contrary to the truth.

That is not the same sort of "imagination" that goes into invention. Inventive "imagination" always starts with the facts, and works toward the possibilities imaginable from those facts.
"VA's imaginings on these points are gratuitious and unanchored, a kind of imagining that has no relation to reality or the facts, and in this case, even runs contrary to the truth."

- I haven't read enough of this big thread to assess the quality of VA's comments.

- I do know that the tactic of misrepresenting another's meaning, and then critically addressing that misrepresentation, is a legitimate debate tactic with the aim of clarification, by means of the other person correcting the misrepresentation of meaning. When the other person can do that quickly and appropriately without being distracted from their meaning should they bother with the exercise, then you have done them a favour in the practice of clear thinking. From what I've noticed, whether inadvertently or purposefully, you do this with compassion. It's up to the misrepresented party to overcome their own frustration-variety of suffering.

"Inventive "imagination" always starts with the facts, and works toward the possibilities imaginable from those facts."

- That's some good, solid information there. That's a keeper.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 3:22 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 1:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:49 pmYou can imagine anything you want.
Imagination precedes everything man creates,
Not in this context.
VA's imaginings on these points are gratuitious and unanchored, a kind of imagining that has no relation to reality or the facts, and in this case, even runs contrary to the truth.

That is not the same sort of "imagination" that goes into invention. Inventive "imagination" always starts with the facts, and works toward the possibilities imaginable from those facts.
I think that religious fantasy establishes falsehoods as facts and the imagination then works on those fantasy facts. In hindsight, one might see where the fantasy facts through creative imagination then lead to the sublimely absurd---miracles etc...,
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Inventive "imagination" always starts with the facts, and works toward the possibilities imaginable from those facts.
Without quibbling about 'facts' I agree with Immanuel Can. IC 's usage of 'imagination' accords with Keats and Coleridge, and enlightened teachers everywhere.

Imagination is not at all the same as fantasy. Fantasising demands suspending disbelief in the impossible. Creatively imagining demands respect for the reality of all experiences.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
3. Culture

You may be aware that much of what we consider normal has not been considered normal at other points in history and/or in other parts of the world.
Gasp!!!
One source of these differences in norms is culture. Cultures change over time and differ between regions.
Of course: what could possibly be more obvious?

Except perhaps if you are a moral objectivist. And, if so, it makes absolutely no difference that historically and culturally there have been hundreds and hundreds of conflicting and contradictory One True Paths taken. Your own is still the One True Path.

What does that tell you about the nature of human morality? This: that it's less what you believe and more that you believe.

Cultures themselves are just historical communities that span the globe. They all share in common the need to subsist. The need to reproduce. The need to defend themselves against enemies.

But then there are all of the many things that human beings want once the basic necessities are secured. Social issues they are often called. Or "value-voter" issues. And here in particular conflicting goods can come at communities from all directions.

Thus the part where we get down to particulars:
So cultural differences may result in differences in moral systems, judgments, and norms. For example, some cultures consider it wrong to eat certain animals that other cultures not only eat, but often take pride in eating. There are even emerging differences in whether it is ever right to eat animals.
Here of course there are components of culture that stand out.

One revolves around religion. You choose righteous behaviors. Behaviors in other words that are in sync with one or another God or spiritual path. And this can become especially crucial because, as often as not, immortality and salvation are included in a "package deal". Here and now, there and then. Leading some communities to choose theocracy itself as the governing authority.

Another is dollars and cents. Doing the right thing in competition with doing what will enable you to prosper. Or even insisting that whatever does enable you to prosper is what makes something moral. The "virtue of selfishness". How to reconcile what can be a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, law of the jungle mentality often attributed to capitalism with, for example, "what would Jesus do"?


https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
Walker
Posts: 14247
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:04 am Another is dollars and cents. Doing the right thing in competition with doing what will enable you to prosper. Or even insisting that whatever does enable you to prosper is what makes something moral. The "virtue of selfishness". How to reconcile what can be a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, law of the jungle mentality often attributed to capitalism with, for example, "what would Jesus do"?
Don't be surprised if the government and its partnering agents begin broadcasting that Jesus would choose an electric car, a push that will end when only electric cars are available, and when the news is all about historic traffic standstills, squabbles over electricity rationing, and political campaign issues concerning pollution and toxic battery disposal. There will also be the occasional news story about the tragedy of battery fires complete with body counts, so folks can obsess over that distracting new worry while the planet is being saved and investors in the new, unnecessary invention are replacing something that already exists and is better, with a gimmick that is worse and will cause trouble. "What's that smell? Check the car to see if it's on fire." Or, "We have to replace the battery in the car, and the wait time is three years so we should just get another mortgage and buy a new car."

The internal combustion auto was an improvement over the horse and buggy.
The electric car is not an improvement over the internal combustion auto.

Such is the future for a crony-capitalistic, democratic republic being sucked dry within an unreported economic bubble.
Walker
Posts: 14247
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

Here's something that will put freedom into perspective.
The horrors of Western freedom do not exist relative to this.

The videos in this link are rather disturbing images of China's Lockdown Industry.
They show isolation camps, children in solitary, apartment beings being welded shut, and an incredibly long convoy of buses in a conga line through deserted streets, transporting many thousands of children to isolation camps.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... scape.html
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
4. Politics
Much of human history involves fights to obtain and protect power. The powerful often want to maintain their power and the powerless often want to overthrow abusers of power.
Let's face it, for all practical purposes, nothing is really more important when discussing morality than the role that political economy plays within the existential parameters of any given extant community. There can be any number of competing moral philosophies/convictions that get assessed in places like this, but it is only in regard to what you are actually able to do or not do given your day to day interactions with others that ultimately counts.

Then the part where that often revolves in turn around the existential -- historical, cultural -- relationship between economic power and political power. Crony capitalism and/or state capitalism in our modern world. The golden rule: those who have the gold rule. That's simply how the world works. Or, as Bob Dylan once intimated:

"Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid"

Thus:
These power dynamics may influence the development of morality. For example, norms about property, currency, labor, and autonomy can serve as limits on how power can be wielded over others. And many of these norms seem to feature not just in politics, but in moral systems as well.
Here, of course, there are any number of renditions proposed: the ruling class, the establishment, the deep state, the powers that be, the ones behind the curtains.

And, sure, sometimes this power is less naked. It gets incorporated into the very law of the land itself. It is seen as that which is moral and ethical and obligatory for all rational people.

Capitalism or socialism as a virtuous font.

And of course those who insist that all of this can be traced back to any number of biological imperatives. Their own take on what is "natural behavior".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
5. Emotion

Our emotional responses can condition us into liking some things and disliking others. For example, when parents reward certain behavior and punish others, their children may become conditioned to have positive feelings about the rewarded behavior and negative feelings about the punished behavior. These positive and negative feelings may influence our evaluations of what we (and others) ought and ought not to do.
How complex and convoluted can this become?

To find out, follow the exchange between myself and gib here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767

Just skip the Kids and the riffraff.

Now, for those here who do not possess a near robotic emotional response to good and evil, you will no doubt agree that genetically, biologically, we all come into this world hardwired to feel emotions. But look around you. Over and again, in regard to morality and the behaviors we choose, what some feel good about others feel bad about instead. Just pick an issue.

And, beyond all doubt, that begins when we are children. A time when others indoctrinate us to love and to hate what they love and hate. And this "inculcating" is particularly effective because it is often motivated by love. Parents and family members and relatives and many in the community, caring deeply about you, prepare you to understand the world as it must be understood if you are to become "one of us" and not "one of them".

We are taught to think and to feel only the right things.

On the other hand, since this clearly changes historically, culturally and in terms of our own personal experiences, it was necessary for philosophy to be invented. That way ethics could be invented in turn and all truly rational and virtuous men and women could learn to subsume all of that subjective, "existential" stuff into one or another truly deontological assessment of good and bad.

And, by and large, in any given community, we can expect it all to unfold as follows:
Learning moral norms may also work via some sort of emotional conditioning. If parents, authorities, or society consistently shame people for certain behaviors, then we may feel disinclined to behave that way. And we may be conditioned to prioritize behaviors that parents, authorities, and society constantly praise. We may also join in these praise and blame habits.
Only that was before.

Before being the time when communities were small and there was always a proper place for everyone and everyone was always in their proper place. In the modern world, however, that all changed. With such technologies as television and the internet and smart phones, it is now possible for any particular one of us to be bombarded with zillions of different [often conflicting] ways to think about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.

Then [of course] the part that I focus in on: dasein.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Can Language Affect Morality?
BY STEPH KOYFMAN at +Babbel magazine
Language and morality: is there really a link there? Is morality subjective, or does the compass always bend to a “true north” that exists outside of our cultural biases?
Here he is writing about morality using language and then asking whether language can affect morality.

What am I missing here? How could any discussion of morality bursting at the seams with language -- words -- not impart consequences?

Words like these: "How ought one to behave morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

Given a particular context.

A context is chosen, the arguments are made. And depending on how successful we are at conveying our points, after the discussion we might actually prompt some to change their behaviors.

Indeed, the whole debate about subjective/objective morality itself...try to imagine it unfolding if no language at all was used.

So, of course language can affect morality. The real question is how successful we are at connecting the dots between words and worlds.
The idea of an objective sense of “right” and “wrong” has a strong hold on our cultural imagination, and it’s one that is central to many major religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
With religious language, however, the point is less regarding the words used to champion "commandments" here and now and more regarding the words used to champion "immortality" and "salvation" there and then. Words used to describe Heaven and Hell too. Morality before and after you die.
Leave it to scientific inquiry, then, to poke some holes in this theory. Various studies have shown that moral judgments can actually change when they’re made in a foreign language, veering toward a more dispassionate, utilitarian take. That’s not to say that foreign languages make us less moral — just that they make us a different kind of moral.
And then the part where, over time, historically, the language of morality can also shift dramatically. And then the part where each of us as individuals can encounter personal experiences so different that "good" and "bad" revolve around ever more problematic exchanges of language.

Thus, for philosophers, the invention of deontology. The belief that, say, ethicists, if they think, really, really hard enough, they might become the next Immanuel Kant.
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:37 pm 8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
5. Emotion

Our emotional responses can condition us into liking some things and disliking others. For example, when parents reward certain behavior and punish others, their children may become conditioned to have positive feelings about the rewarded behavior and negative feelings about the punished behavior. These positive and negative feelings may influence our evaluations of what we (and others) ought and ought not to do.
How complex and convoluted can this become?

To find out, follow the exchange between myself and gib here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767

Just skip the Kids and the riffraff.

Now, for those here who do not possess a near robotic emotional response to good and evil, you will no doubt agree that genetically, biologically, we all come into this world hardwired to feel emotions. But look around you. Over and again, in regard to morality and the behaviors we choose, what some feel good about others feel bad about instead. Just pick an issue.

And, beyond all doubt, that begins when we are children. A time when others indoctrinate us to love and to hate what they love and hate. And this "inculcating" is particularly effective because it is often motivated by love. Parents and family members and relatives and many in the community, caring deeply about you, prepare you to understand the world as it must be understood if you are to become "one of us" and not "one of them".

We are taught to think and to feel only the right things.

On the other hand, since this clearly changes historically, culturally and in terms of our own personal experiences, it was necessary for philosophy to be invented. That way ethics could be invented in turn and all truly rational and virtuous men and women could learn to subsume all of that subjective, "existential" stuff into one or another truly deontological assessment of good and bad.

And, by and large, in any given community, we can expect it all to unfold as follows:
Learning moral norms may also work via some sort of emotional conditioning. If parents, authorities, or society consistently shame people for certain behaviors, then we may feel disinclined to behave that way. And we may be conditioned to prioritize behaviors that parents, authorities, and society constantly praise. We may also join in these praise and blame habits.
Only that was before.

Before being the time when communities were small and there was always a proper place for everyone and everyone was always in their proper place. In the modern world, however, that all changed. With such technologies as television and the internet and smart phones, it is now possible for any particular one of us to be bombarded with zillions of different [often conflicting] ways to think about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.

Then [of course] the part that I focus in on: dasein.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
Then tell Dasein that Dasein will save himself from moral and practical error if he stops and reflects that his choices are not easy and that he may be wrong.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:14 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:37 pm 8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
5. Emotion

Our emotional responses can condition us into liking some things and disliking others. For example, when parents reward certain behavior and punish others, their children may become conditioned to have positive feelings about the rewarded behavior and negative feelings about the punished behavior. These positive and negative feelings may influence our evaluations of what we (and others) ought and ought not to do.
How complex and convoluted can this become?

To find out, follow the exchange between myself and gib here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767

Just skip the Kids and the riffraff.

Now, for those here who do not possess a near robotic emotional response to good and evil, you will no doubt agree that genetically, biologically, we all come into this world hardwired to feel emotions. But look around you. Over and again, in regard to morality and the behaviors we choose, what some feel good about others feel bad about instead. Just pick an issue.

And, beyond all doubt, that begins when we are children. A time when others indoctrinate us to love and to hate what they love and hate. And this "inculcating" is particularly effective because it is often motivated by love. Parents and family members and relatives and many in the community, caring deeply about you, prepare you to understand the world as it must be understood if you are to become "one of us" and not "one of them".

We are taught to think and to feel only the right things.

On the other hand, since this clearly changes historically, culturally and in terms of our own personal experiences, it was necessary for philosophy to be invented. That way ethics could be invented in turn and all truly rational and virtuous men and women could learn to subsume all of that subjective, "existential" stuff into one or another truly deontological assessment of good and bad.

And, by and large, in any given community, we can expect it all to unfold as follows:
Learning moral norms may also work via some sort of emotional conditioning. If parents, authorities, or society consistently shame people for certain behaviors, then we may feel disinclined to behave that way. And we may be conditioned to prioritize behaviors that parents, authorities, and society constantly praise. We may also join in these praise and blame habits.
Only that was before.

Before being the time when communities were small and there was always a proper place for everyone and everyone was always in their proper place. In the modern world, however, that all changed. With such technologies as television and the internet and smart phones, it is now possible for any particular one of us to be bombarded with zillions of different [often conflicting] ways to think about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.

Then [of course] the part that I focus in on: dasein.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
Then tell Dasein that Dasein will save himself from moral and practical error if he stops and reflects that his choices are not easy and that he may be wrong.
:lol:

No, seriously.
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:14 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:37 pm 8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd



How complex and convoluted can this become?

To find out, follow the exchange between myself and gib here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767

Just skip the Kids and the riffraff.

Now, for those here who do not possess a near robotic emotional response to good and evil, you will no doubt agree that genetically, biologically, we all come into this world hardwired to feel emotions. But look around you. Over and again, in regard to morality and the behaviors we choose, what some feel good about others feel bad about instead. Just pick an issue.

And, beyond all doubt, that begins when we are children. A time when others indoctrinate us to love and to hate what they love and hate. And this "inculcating" is particularly effective because it is often motivated by love. Parents and family members and relatives and many in the community, caring deeply about you, prepare you to understand the world as it must be understood if you are to become "one of us" and not "one of them".

We are taught to think and to feel only the right things.

On the other hand, since this clearly changes historically, culturally and in terms of our own personal experiences, it was necessary for philosophy to be invented. That way ethics could be invented in turn and all truly rational and virtuous men and women could learn to subsume all of that subjective, "existential" stuff into one or another truly deontological assessment of good and bad.

And, by and large, in any given community, we can expect it all to unfold as follows:



Only that was before.

Before being the time when communities were small and there was always a proper place for everyone and everyone was always in their proper place. In the modern world, however, that all changed. With such technologies as television and the internet and smart phones, it is now possible for any particular one of us to be bombarded with zillions of different [often conflicting] ways to think about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.

Then [of course] the part that I focus in on: dasein.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
Then tell Dasein that Dasein will save himself from moral and practical error if he stops and reflects that his choices are not easy and that he may be wrong.
:lol:

No, seriously.
Don't accept Dasein as if Dasein could not be challenged. The very act of challenging Dasein is step into freedom.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:12 pm Don't accept Dasein as if Dasein could not be challenged. The very act of challenging Dasein is step into freedom.
Okay, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially here...
a man amidst mankind...

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

Or, of course, is that just my foundation?
...how, given a particular context of your choice involving conflicting goods, would you compare and contrast my points above with your own moral philosophy?
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:44 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:12 pm Don't accept Dasein as if Dasein could not be challenged. The very act of challenging Dasein is step into freedom.
Okay, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially here...
a man amidst mankind...

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

Or, of course, is that just my foundation?
...how, given a particular context of your choice involving conflicting goods, would you compare and contrast my points above with your own moral philosophy?
My own moral philosophy reduces "reduces" , like a cook 'reduces' liquid content: self , personas, mind, and consciousness to experience. Experience is its own subject of experience. I think we'd agree thus far.

The of idea of Dasein is accumulated experience and it matters because Dasein functions as the springboard into future experience. Without Dasein we would be changeless and static like in the Garden of Eden.

What can you or I do about it? We do the best we can according to a melange of Dasein and fickle fortune. Our futures are compounded of choice and chance. Dasein is alive.
Post Reply