Is THAT what you got out of my comment? Maybe read my comment again. My comment does not mention a single thing about Israelis or Palestinians or Genocide.
Subjective morality is the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions rather than on objective facts or universal principles. It implies that there is no absolute right or wrong, but rather that morality is relative to each individual or culture. It can be contrasted with objective morality, which holds that moral judgments are grounded in some external reality or rationality that transcends human subjectivity.
For most of us, our personal moral codes are shaped by factors like:
(1) Our upbringing and life experiences: The moral values instilled in us by our parents and communities often stick with us.
(2) Cultural influences: The society and culture we live in significantly impact our views on moral. issues. What is acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another.
(3) Personal values: Things like compassion, fairness, and harm reduction are common moral values, but we don’t all prioritize them the same way.
(4) Context: Moral judgments are often highly dependent on context. For example, killing another person is usually considered wrong, but not if done in self-defense or during war.
The subjective view stands in contrast to moral objectivism,, which holds that certain moral truths are universal and unchanging. However, subjective morality does not mean “anything goes.” Most of us share some basic moral intuitions and principles in common. But there is no consensus on many moral issues, and reasonable people can disagree.
If you want to know my moral stances on Israel/Palestine/Genocide, you can either ASK me or read my comments on Caitlin's substack instead of JUMPING to conclusions and ASSUMING things based on your 'inadequate critical thinking skills'. This isn't a vitriolic statement, it is an observational assessment based on your comments and responses.
I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.
>>"Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than..."
Dude, you have issues (specifically hero worship and 'not thinking for yourself' issues).
BTW, 'Deep State' is a 'catch-all' term for how Empires function (whether it be the U.S. Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, etc.). There is nothing really 'conspiratorial' about 'Deep States'. What IS conspiratorial though, are the 'theories' about the conspiracies (and not the conspiracies themselves).
There is a DIFFERENCE between 'a conspiracy' and 'conspiratorial thinking that leads to low-quality conspiracy theories'!
▪️ A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.
▪️ A conspiracy theory is a structured belief about a conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
▪️ A conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds a conspiracy theory about a possible conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
BTW, people have been analyzing 'deep state' workings BEFORE 'your hero Aaron Good' was born. There's nothing really new he provides, not to mention doing a bad job of synthesizing information provided by so many others (like Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, etc.). And from watching his videos and finally reading his 'American Exception: Empire and the Deep State' book, I have to say that it is QUITE a let-down.
How do you form an opinion this critical of US policy and then back RFK JR.? Embarrassing.
I can sum up Good’s book in my own words as basically stating “America is run by a bunch of rich selfish dudes seeking even greater wealth and power, and they’re willing to trample on the rest of us to get it.” Well, duh. One could more effectively make this argument by avoiding harping on dozens of poorly explained conspiracy theories. I see American Exception actually as a dangerous book, in that it’s likely to turn readers against the basic reasonable argument Good is trying to make, that American democracy is decaying.
Aaron prefers to accept simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than trying to wrap his head around the nuance & complexities of the real world. Because of this he ends up arriving at some incorrect conclusions, and propagating woefully inaccurate & insulting narratives.
In other words, YOUR hero - Aaron Good - is a wanna-be, a hack, a person with 'weak critical thinking' skills. Seriously, stick to more intellectual (and better researched) sources like Noam Chomsky and so many others I've mentioned elsewhere in my replies to you. Or continue worshipping your God - the Great Aaron Good.
Is THAT what you got out of my comment? Maybe read my comment again. My comment does not mention a single thing about Israelis or Palestinians or Genocide.
Subjective morality is the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions rather than on objective facts or universal principles. It implies that there is no absolute right or wrong, but rather that morality is relative to each individual or culture. It can be contrasted with objective morality, which holds that moral judgments are grounded in some external reality or rationality that transcends human subjectivity.
For most of us, our personal moral codes are shaped by factors like:
(1) Our upbringing and life experiences: The moral values instilled in us by our parents and communities often stick with us.
(2) Cultural influences: The society and culture we live in significantly impact our views on moral. issues. What is acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another.
(3) Personal values: Things like compassion, fairness, and harm reduction are common moral values, but we don’t all prioritize them the same way.
(4) Context: Moral judgments are often highly dependent on context. For example, killing another person is usually considered wrong, but not if done in self-defense or during war.
The subjective view stands in contrast to moral objectivism,, which holds that certain moral truths are universal and unchanging. However, subjective morality does not mean “anything goes.” Most of us share some basic moral intuitions and principles in common. But there is no consensus on many moral issues, and reasonable people can disagree.
If you want to know my moral stances on Israel/Palestine/Genocide, you can either ASK me or read my comments on Caitlin's substack instead of JUMPING to conclusions and ASSUMING things based on your 'inadequate critical thinking skills'. This isn't a vitriolic statement, it is an observational assessment based on your comments and responses.
Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments.
Your inability to concisely, coherently and explicitly express yourself is not my problem.
>>"Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments."
Yes, and you get what you get because you LACK adequate critical thinking skills.
I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
I know what ad hominem is.
Do you?
It is used when you've lost an argument.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.
>>"Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than..."
Dude, you have issues (specifically hero worship and 'not thinking for yourself' issues).
BTW, 'Deep State' is a 'catch-all' term for how Empires function (whether it be the U.S. Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, etc.). There is nothing really 'conspiratorial' about 'Deep States'. What IS conspiratorial though, are the 'theories' about the conspiracies (and not the conspiracies themselves).
There is a DIFFERENCE between 'a conspiracy' and 'conspiratorial thinking that leads to low-quality conspiracy theories'!
▪️ A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.
▪️ A conspiracy theory is a structured belief about a conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
▪️ A conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds a conspiracy theory about a possible conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
BTW, people have been analyzing 'deep state' workings BEFORE 'your hero Aaron Good' was born. There's nothing really new he provides, not to mention doing a bad job of synthesizing information provided by so many others (like Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, etc.). And from watching his videos and finally reading his 'American Exception: Empire and the Deep State' book, I have to say that it is QUITE a let-down.
How do you form an opinion this critical of US policy and then back RFK JR.? Embarrassing.
I can sum up Good’s book in my own words as basically stating “America is run by a bunch of rich selfish dudes seeking even greater wealth and power, and they’re willing to trample on the rest of us to get it.” Well, duh. One could more effectively make this argument by avoiding harping on dozens of poorly explained conspiracy theories. I see American Exception actually as a dangerous book, in that it’s likely to turn readers against the basic reasonable argument Good is trying to make, that American democracy is decaying.
And guess what JohnOnKaui or John Zwiebel (or whatever your name is), all of this information is available elsewhere in a better format (see my comment here -> https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-fictional-mental-illness-that/comment/129984941)
Aaron prefers to accept simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than trying to wrap his head around the nuance & complexities of the real world. Because of this he ends up arriving at some incorrect conclusions, and propagating woefully inaccurate & insulting narratives.
In other words, YOUR hero - Aaron Good - is a wanna-be, a hack, a person with 'weak critical thinking' skills. Seriously, stick to more intellectual (and better researched) sources like Noam Chomsky and so many others I've mentioned elsewhere in my replies to you. Or continue worshipping your God - the Great Aaron Good.