Well, since I was politely asked for examples of differences in concept, please allow me this final interjection:neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:09 am So you cannot explain it? Can you give clear real-life examples to help us understand the difference?
1) Let's say that I'm the product of a subjectivist leaning society that contends (and thereby strongly enforces) the conceptual belief that reality is what we make it. And, taking this literally, I presume that I can step in front of a moving train and have it pass right through me. In such a case the concept of an objective reality will dictate the end result. Or my collective society teaches me conceptually that since my ancestors were collectively oppressed it is my subjective obligation to my clan/group, etc... to loot and maim and destroy businesses, because my learned societal duty is to do so in the name of preventing the rise and spread of any potential present or future conceptually conceived oppression of capitalist fascism. Or society teaches me that my ancestors roughly 200 years ago were the oppressors (despite that my ancestors arrived here after the fact, and or gave their lives fighting against such oppression), and therefore I must conceptually accept that I owe reparation for the "common good", and my greatest good would be to commit suicide for the common good. Or at the very least to submit to equity as transcending equality.
2) Or lets say that I'm the product of a rigidly intrinsicistic society that contends conceptually (and thereby strongly enforces) that duty to my society (or collective) or a god is my (and everyone's) highest virtue. And I take this literally, and I loot and maim and destroy businesses, because my learned societal duty is to do so in the name of preventing the rise and spread and oppression of such as a capitalist fascism. Or I knife to death and/or cut peoples heads off for not believing in god as I do (such as for a Sicarii or ISIS respectfully). Or I get on a plane and fly to Ukraine and head to the front lines whereby to dutifully destroy Putin. Or I round up anyone perceived to be MAGA and gleefully send them to a gulag. Or I vote early and vote often so as to dutifully promote my societal collectives whims and wishes and demands.
3) Or I am free to accept the concept that individual human life itself is the highest attainable value/virtue, and it's objective expression is legally and objectively equally defended via adherence to property rights (including first and foremost the right to that property which is life itself), and I thereby live objectively so as to promote my own life and that of my local self interests (such as my wife and family) and in so doing (as if by an invisible hand) sustain and benefit all human life...
Ones philosophical outlook as to concepts matters. 1 & 2 are examples of force and negations of life. 1 & 2 are subsets of each other. Example #3 promotes life and rejects force sans in defense of property. Which should I morally accept?