Tim, if you do not mind, I will interject a few general thoughts here......
First, we demonstrate the possibility of inter- subjectivity constantly when we understand one another and engage in cooperative action, or reformulate one another's propositions and show that we understand content. Thus, we are not merely trapped in our individual subjectivity, although there are problems with communing on a deep level.
Second, we show that reason is efficacious in discerning the external world every time we are able to make inferences that prove out in the world. On a personal level, the fact that there is a high degree of reliability in pursuing our ends, as we run our errands or do our work, and that we are continually filling in the gaps through inference, is more compelling than science and technology.
No, we do not have an absolute (i.e., unconditioned) standpoint, and do not know what is being left out of our apprehension of things. Also, there is always a residual possibility of mistake, in even the most compelling reasoning, insofar as we are fallible or may not have some key data. On the other hand, reason is pretty reliable, and some things are likelier to be right than others.
The argument on the part of a lot of supposed "absolutists", like myself, is that morality is not arbitrary, but is grounded in the human conditon and reasoning about what is needed to improve the human lot. The norms are derived from considering what behavior is likeliest to make for social cooperation and useful competition, to enable both stability and progress........ |
