Appeal to human nature

[Conserative Morality]

This is a tacit recognition of the moral worthiness of the communist aim. And once upon a time, this didn't matter so much, if Alice was indeed correct in her assessment of human nature and its possible contradiction to the communist ethos. But we live in a brave new world now, thanks to the immense development of science and technology.

For the sake of argument, let us define human nature as the previously immutable parts of the human condition that are defined by our genes. So, in an era where concepts like genetic engineering have left the realm of science fiction and have indeed become big business in themselves, and when even more radical transhumanist technological practices are looking increasingly possible, the human nature argument is losing its salience. Because human nature is becoming something that we can self-consciously manipulate.

So, given these new possibilities, a new dimension to the appeal to human nature opens up. If our human nature is no longer immutable, can we really say that our biological nature in anyway trumps a moral argument? If by arguing as she does, Alice has tacitly accepted the moral worthiness of the communist vision, and instead has said "Shucks, we can't do it because it's against our nature," it would then follow that if Alice follows her logic to its inexorable conclusion, she must argue that we should change human nature.

But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is a tacit recognition of the moral worthiness of the communist aim. And once upon a time, this didn't matter so much, if Alice was indeed correct in her assessment of human nature and its possible contradiction to the communist ethos. But we live in a brave new world now, thanks to the immense development of science and technology.

For the sake of argument, let us define human nature as the previously immutable parts of the human condition that are defined by our genes. So, in an era where concepts like genetic engineering have left the realm of science fiction and have indeed become big business in themselves, and when even more radical transhumanist technological practices are looking increasingly possible, the human nature argument is losing its salience. Because human nature is becoming something that we can self-consciously manipulate.

So, given these new possibilities, a new dimension to the appeal to human nature opens up. If our human nature is no longer immutable, can we really say that our biological nature in anyway trumps a moral argument? If by arguing as she does, Alice has tacitly accepted the moral worthiness of the communist vision, and instead has said "Shucks, we can't do it because it's against our nature," it would then follow that if Alice follows her logic to its inexorable conclusion, she must argue that we should change human nature.

But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?

There's a value in your existence as a being capable of free thought. Labels we've applied to the shapes of flesh are fairly meaningless.

[Ethel mermania]

so we eradicate the folks who disagee with us?

No. You're missing the point. We have to do it bloodlessly. Another example is how the two world wars was fought over ideologies and resources. Now we have trade agreements and freedoms to accommodate those ideologies. So, again, human nature can be changed.

and is it inhernetly human nature to have human sacrifice?

It is. That doesn't mean it can't be suppressed and eventually eliminated.

i dont see either position as being integral to "human nature".

[Trotskylvania]

This is a tacit recognition of the moral worthiness of the communist aim. And once upon a time, this didn't matter so much, if Alice was indeed correct in her assessment of human nature and its possible contradiction to the communist ethos. But we live in a brave new world now, thanks to the immense development of science and technology.

For the sake of argument, let us define human nature as the previously immutable parts of the human condition that are defined by our genes. So, in an era where concepts like genetic engineering have left the realm of science fiction and have indeed become big business in themselves, and when even more radical transhumanist technological practices are looking increasingly possible, the human nature argument is losing its salience. Because human nature is becoming something that we can self-consciously manipulate.

So, given these new possibilities, a new dimension to the appeal to human nature opens up. If our human nature is no longer immutable, can we really say that our biological nature in anyway trumps a moral argument? If by arguing as she does, Alice has tacitly accepted the moral worthiness of the communist vision, and instead has said "Shucks, we can't do it because it's against our nature," it would then follow that if Alice follows her logic to its inexorable conclusion, she must argue that we should change human nature.

But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?

This is a gotcha argument. I don't accept any of the premises. It has no other purpose than to make the people who do accept the premises by making appeals to human nature feel uncomfortable and contemplate their navels.

[Conserative Morality]

This is a gotcha argument. I don't accept any of the premises. It has no other purpose than to make the people who do accept the premises by making appeals to human nature feel uncomfortable and contemplate their navels.

Ah, I see.

There's a value in your existence as a being capable of free thought. Labels we've applied to the shapes of flesh are fairly meaningless.

All things are inherently meaningless. What gives any label, or anything at all, value is only what value we assign to them. Your judgement of the value of being a being capable of free thought is no more inherently meaningful than a white supremacist placing value on being white, or me placing value on being human.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is a gotcha argument. I don't accept any of the premises. It has no other purpose than to make the people who do accept the premises by making appeals to human nature feel uncomfortable and contemplate their navels.

Ah, I see.

There's a value in your existence as a being capable of free thought. Labels we've applied to the shapes of flesh are fairly meaningless.

All things are inherently meaningless. What gives any label, or anything at all, value is only what value we assign to them. Your judgement of the value of being a being capable of free thought is no more inherently meaningful than a white supremacist placing value on being white, or me placing value on being human.

Not really, since one can be rigorously defined while the others are shifting in definitions.

If "being human" matters so much, define what matters about it, compared to being capable of thought in the way you are?

[Ethel mermania]

You'll be waiting forever. There's a reason humans and our ancestors have lived in tribes for the past ~5-6 million years.

Drat. I guess I'll never get a response to this then.

I...what? Evolution actually requires us to be LESS selfish. You're applying traits from mammals who are nowhere near the level of social interaction of humans. Indeed we are one of the only species that regularly applies compassion and altruism to those outside of our normal social groups.

false, adult wilderbeast will protect their young against lions, elephants help their younger and older relatives, so do dolphins protect their sick. altruism is also part of animal nature.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

It's certainly in interesting approach, but it's one that is beside the point. Kinda like arguing that homosexuality is not a choice--true as far as it goes, but ultimately irrelevant.

[Conserative Morality]

Not really, since one can be rigorously defined while the others are shifting in definitions.

Really? Free thought has a single unquestionable definition amongst all who use the term? Very well, define free thought for me.

If "being human" matters so much, define what matters about it, compared to being capable of thought in the way you are?

You make a mistake; you assume that there is something behind being human that warrants value; something that you can understand, and tear apart. But what good would a value judgement about one's humanity be if it just represented a pack of traits that could be judged separately?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Drat. I guess I'll never get a response to this then.

false, adult wilderbeast will protect their young against lions, elephants help their younger and older relatives, so do dolphins protect their sick. altruism is also part of animal nature.

Altruism is genetic, and there is a pretty good logic to it. You take, say, a 10% chance of dying to save an animal with 13% of your genes. That's a good trade-off from an evolutionary perspective. It developed because it helped species to grow. Human behaviors are a bit different, in the sense that we've developed large brains to store information in lieu of relying on slowly-mutating(thus slowly-adapting) genetic markers for everything. Thanks to that, humans are capable of wildly different behaviors for different situations.

[Meryuma]

clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

A consistent egoist will not support capitalism.

[Mavorpen]

Drat. I guess I'll never get a response to this then.

false, adult wilderbeast will protect their young against lions, elephants help their younger and older relatives, so do dolphins protect their sick. altruism is also part of animal nature.

Thank you for this straw man.

Please note that I said outside of our normal social groups. It's rare for a pride of lions for instance to share their prey with other prides. You also neglected to notice that I stated that we are one of the only species. It then logically follows that yes, other species regularly show altruism and compassion outside of their normal social groups.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Not really, since one can be rigorously defined while the others are shifting in definitions.

Really? Free thought has a single unquestionable definition amongst all who use the term? Very well, define free thought for me.

Thought: "to conceive of in the mind, consider".

If "being human" matters so much, define what matters about it, compared to being capable of thought in the way you are?

You make a mistake; you assume that there is something behind being human that warrants value; something that you can understand, and tear apart. But what good would a value judgement about one's humanity be if it just represented a pack of traits that could be judged separately?

Sounds like a bunch of aimless mysticism to me.

[Mavorpen]

false, adult wilderbeast will protect their young against lions, elephants help their younger and older relatives, so do dolphins protect their sick. altruism is also part of animal nature.

Altruism is genetic, and there is a pretty good logic to it. You take, say, a 10% chance of dying to save an animal with 13% of your genes. That's a good trade-off from an evolutionary perspective. It developed because it helped species to grow. Human behaviors are a bit different, in the sense that we've developed large brains to store information in lieu of relying on slowly-mutating(thus slowly-adapting) genetic markers for everything. Thanks to that, humans are capable of wildly different behaviors for different situations.

It's both a curse and a blessing. It helps us create fantastic cultures where art, science, the concept of rights, etc. flourish while at the same time allowing us to create cultures where these things are stifled. But that's the challenge we face.

[Conserative Morality]

Thought: "to conceive of in the mind, consider".

Free thought is what you said, free thought is what I asked about. For that matter, at what point is consideration considered to extend to other creatures? Is a dog's hesitation before grabbing a chicken due consideration and fear? Does a dog hold free thought?

Sounds like a bunch of aimless mysticism to me.

Life is a journey, not a destination. If you're looking for direction, join a religion.

[Mavorpen]

Thought: "to conceive of in the mind, consider".

Free thought is what you said, free thought is what I asked about. For that matter, at what point is consideration considered to extend to other creatures? Is a dog's hesitation before grabbing a chicken due consideration and fear? Does a dog hold free thought?

I agree with you. The same problem arises from intelligence and consciousness. What traits do we use to test and measure the extent of intelligence and consciousness? Do we even have a set definition that the scientific community agrees on a general level?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Thought: "to conceive of in the mind, consider".

Free thought is what you said, free thought is what I asked about. For that matter, at what point is consideration considered to extend to other creatures? Is a dog's hesitation before grabbing a chicken due consideration and fear? Does a dog hold free thought?

The more I look, the more I see thought occurring down the line, especially in all mammals. Thus, they hold value and I oppose their enslavement.

Sounds like a bunch of aimless mysticism to me.

Life is a journey, not a destination. If you're looking for direction, join a religion.

"Belief" is kind of silly. Look at what's there, not what you project onto things.

[Ethel mermania]

false, adult wilderbeast will protect their young against lions, elephants help their younger and older relatives, so do dolphins protect their sick. altruism is also part of animal nature.

Altruism is genetic, and there is a pretty good logic to it. You take, say, a 10% chance of dying to save an animal with 13% of your genes. That's a good trade-off from an evolutionary perspective. It developed because it helped species to grow. Human behaviors are a bit different, in the sense that we've developed large brains to store information in lieu of relying on slowly-mutating(thus slowly-adapting) genetic markers for everything. Thanks to that, humans are capable of wildly different behaviors for different situations.

that is valid. i would argue that our "nature" is driven by a combination of factors, including biology and higher order thought, but the seperation out of that biology is neither possible or desirable.

which leads back to my acceptance that, in theory while communist society would be nice, humanity itself is the biggest obsticle to it.

[Mavorpen]

which leads back to my acceptance that, in theory while communist society would be nice, humanity itself is the biggest obsticle to it.

This is extremely difficult to back up. Have you included other factors such as technological advancement, the abolition of money, the destruction of classes, etc.? Otherwise how can you truly back up such a claim with certainty with all of these other factors in play?

[Conserative Morality]

The more I look, the more I see thought occurring down the line, especially in all mammals. Thus, they hold value and I oppose their enslavement.

At least you're consistent in your silliness. In any case, you've yet to make a case as to why your value judgement on thought (Not free thought, apparently) is any more meaningful than my judgement regarding humanity.

"Belief" is kind of silly. Look at what's there, not what you project onto things.

I see what's in the world and I judge it. You're saying that I should only judge what you deem worthy of judging via a system that has no more meaning than mine, and lacks my own judgements regarding worth.

You want silly? That right there is silly.

[Ethel mermania]

which leads back to my acceptance that, in theory while communist society would be nice, humanity itself is the biggest obsticle to it.

This is extremely difficult to back up. Have you included other factors such as technological advancement, the abolition of money, the destruction of classes, etc.? Otherwise how can you truly back up such a claim with certainty with all of these other factors in play?

that i think communism in its ideal state would be a good thing?
i have read marx, and i think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
and i have seen the world, and despite the efforts of mnay people i have not seen a true marxist society in action

[Mavorpen]

This is extremely difficult to back up. Have you included other factors such as technological advancement, the abolition of money, the destruction of classes, etc.? Otherwise how can you truly back up such a claim with certainty with all of these other factors in play?

that i think communism in its ideal state would be a good thing?
i have read marx, and i think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
and i have seen the world, and despite the efforts of mnay people i have not seen a true marxist society in action

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

that i think communism in its ideal state would be a good thing?
i have read marx, and i think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
and i have seen the world, and despite the efforts of mnay people i have not seen a true marxist society in action

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

To be fair, you need to support the correlation between technological deficiency and the failure of communal societies. Without evidence, it's just as unfounded an assertion as the "human nature" argument.

[Mavorpen]

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

To be fair, you need to support the correlation between technological deficiency and the failure of communal societies. Without evidence, it's just as unfounded an assertion as the "human nature" argument.

I...what?

Where did I say the failure of communal societies is due to technological deficiency? I stated that the failure of Marxist societies is partially due to that.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

To be fair, you need to support the correlation between technological deficiency and the failure of communal societies. Without evidence, it's just as unfounded an assertion as the "human nature" argument.

I...what?

Where did I say the failure of communal societies is due to technological deficiency? I stated that the failure of Marxist societies is partially due to that.

You didn't say "partially due to that", and even then, you need to explain why.

I'm just a simple man who doesn't know the difference between "Marxist" and "communal" societies, you see. I need an explanation.