I've completely run out of steam where blogging is concerned. I thought I was going to write a series on objective morality, but it is just not going to happen.
I think my blogging phase has run its course. I've worked through the issues that I needed to work through, and a lot of it was on other writers' blogs.
I just don't have the time to spare! What I've been doing this past year has not been working well.
I need to re-think my career strategy, by which I mean I need a job that can sustain my family. Blogging is a luxury I can no longer afford. Survival has to come first.
The financial crisis continues. I don't think we'll end up homeless - but I do need more focus. There was a long period there where the blog provided a much-needed escape and safe avenue for expression. Now I consider it a distraction at best.
This blog never fulfilled its potential - by which I mean that I always wanted to do it better, and more regularly, and I have always been a little disappointed for not being able to take the time to do it right.
I've had a few good posts, and had some good interactions.
Thank you, all my snaarsissistic friends. I may or may not post on occasion. I will continue to visit your blogs once-in-a-while. In time, perhaps there will be a resurrection ...?
For Love of Tender Recondity
- snaars
- Cognoscension, MY, United States
- If it can be spoken, then it is not the true snaars. Snaars should not be mistaken for his mortal alter-ego, snaars. This earthly manifestation of snaars - or snaarsissistic prophet, if you will - is a rather unambitious thirtysomething recent college graduate with a bachelor's degree in philosophy and a minor in religious studies. A devoted husband, and father of three beautiful snaars daughters, Snaars blogs about his life, his times, his family, favorite song lyrics, nonsense, wisdom, atheism, metaphysics, science, rationality, and the snaars. Snaars likes to remove old words from the back of the cupboard, polish them up, and display them in fresh ways. Feel free to expand the horizons of discourse, because snaars has ever-unplumbed depths of mutifacetedness. And humility. (If only the world knew the perplexity of my condition, for Snaars could be so easily consumed by vanity!)
La lettre d'écarlate de l'athéisme, snaarsassiste
TCPS
UCS
Iraq war web sites
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
5 comments:
This news makes me sad. You were one of my first contacts in the blogosphere, and you've hung with me longer than anyone else. I know blogging is a real investment of time … and you've got young children … so I can understand that it isn't your top priority. But damn, I'm disappointed!
I'm glad you succeeded at working through the issues you needed to.
Maybe when the pressure is off, one day you'll feel an impulse to write a post on something you need to get off your chest. So I'll extend an open invitation to you: if that day comes, you can always guest post on my blog.
I have thought, for a long time now, that it would be a lot easier to produce regular posts if I was part of a team. Particularly if you write substantive stuff of the sort that interests me. I can understand why everybody wants a blog he can call his own; but life is full of competing demands, so I don't know why team blogging is uncommon.
I'll add you as an administrator, if you like, with no pressure to post. Ever.
Thank you, Stephen. I will stay in touch.
I would've loved to hear what you have to say about objective morality, but I understand that you have other, more important concerns. If/when you decide to write something about that or something else entirely, I'll be happy to read.
Thanks, Simen. I think I've already given you the gist of it, on Stephen's blog and on your own, here and here. (I place the links for my own future reference, but there may be a reader who will find them of interest.)
Basically, I think there are at least two fairly good arguments against moral objectivism, but both arguments are insufficient to show moral objectivism false.
Firstly: the argument against moral objectivism on the grounds that there are no inherently good or bad actions fails, because inherent goodness or badness of actions is not required for moral objectivism to be true.
Secondly: the argument against MO on the grounds that we cannot appeal to morality in order to justify morality fails, because morality can be justified in some other way.
For instance, I would argue that morality is just that set of behaviors described by normative ethical theories, the justification for which is the general survival, and overall health and well-being of moral agents, their environment, et al. No justification other than survival and health and well-being is necessary.
Humans have a moral nature not because it is a choice, but because we evolved it for survival. But even if we did not evolve a moral nature, we would still be able to follow moral principles if we chose to do so. The principles themselves do not depend upon human choice for their existence. The natural result of following moral principles is survival, health, and well-being.
Those who fail to follow moral principles are amoral or immoral, by definition - they are therefore dangerous, and that justifies our treatment of them.
Just saying these things here is not enough to demonstrate their truth or falsity, in my opinion. All I was going to do is to better develop the ideas, and to show some evidence in support of them.
I still want to do it, but I don't have the time.
Post a Comment