Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
But all I see are three humans. One kills the other and the third wastes energy imprisoning and possibly impuning the third. That isn't natural behaviour, it is the result of a socially agreed framework with recognised roles and responsibilities. Some of the urges or literal forces may have been primal but the outcome was socially engineered.
I see 3 humans too. And it might be a waste of time for one of the humans to put the other one in jail - but that's his prerogative. How do I know that? Objectivity.
Now, it's funny you should say that...
One of the things that humans have done is to continuously find and improve our methods of quantifying the quantifiable.
Let me use some maths to calculate the movement of Venus; x=y^2. It is maths, but clearly I have no base idea of where to actually start because I don't have the sum of research before me and I haven't practiced its use.
Venus was always doing what she did, we weren't always able to do fancy maths'n'stuff with it. See 'flat earth' for more details.
The point of our disagreement is, it seems to me, the separation between the naturally occuring behaviours of the host (which vary very little from species to species, humans included) and the philosphical definition of what that behaviour means as a social action.
No. Not as a social action, there is no society needed - which is precisely why I used the Lion and the antellopegazelleimpala as an example. You keep trying to make this about a social framwork and about human beings, but this applies to animals, rocks, trees, and the vacuum of space.
Excluding some measurements as 'definitely subjective' doesn't mean that what remains is definitely objective because the initial scope may have been flawed, that's how I feel when I read the arguments that one expression of force enables the right to return expression of force. There were no rights, the use of force by one organism or the other was simply a sum result of the base programming.
"Simply the sum result of base programming" is totally 100% beside the point. Nowhere in my reasoning does the rationale behind the action come into play. Evaluating that requires some subjective value system - your favorite seems to be to value animal instinct as some kind of pure, unquestionable, unchangeable objective reality. My point is that you can objectively say that when a lion kills a gazelle, a subjective value (might makes right, survival of the fittest, etc. etc.) was imposed.
It's not that excluding some things means the remainder is objective. It's that you can identify subjectivity and avoid it - but only if you have a brain and the ability to understand that (unlike, say, a lion).
So why get out of bed?
In order to survive I need to negotiate the appropriate resources, that's the only reason we all get out of bed. Perhaps if I were more perfect I'd realise that it all really is futile and pointless at which time I'd stay in my bed and die.
You're dodging the point. I did not claim that getting out of bed is somehow better than not getting out of bed (that would be subjective). I was pointing out that rights stem from logic, and if you're going to question logic, you shouldn't bother getting out of bed.
Last edited: