Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2012, 08:59 AM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
We must first define a human being.
Currently the definition is purely biological.
I want a more metaphysical or philosophical if you like, approach to the definition of a human being.

The reason for that is because I don't regard psychopathic murderers, rapists or child abducters as "human beings". I want to extend this negative definition of non-human beings further and say that anyone who do evil things for the sake of being evil or just for the fun of it, do not qualify for the label "human".

With that in place we can use logical deduction into defining who is a human and who is not. Thus defining who should be subject to enforcement and who shouldn't.

In other words, I'll be using a new definition of Jus Civile, Jus Gentium and Jus Naturale. People who follow their true conscience and do good deeds to others are subject to Jus Civile.
Animals like pigs and cows and the like are subject to Jus Gentium.
Psychopaths and the like are subject to Jus Naturale.
As long as we're redefining the definition of human, why not use a definition more advantageous to our society. Why not base it on intelligence or productivity. Better a productive psychopath than a 'normal' person on welfare, for the former contributes to economic activity giving me the opportunity to gain more wealth whereas the latter grants me no benefit and is merely a burden. Perhaps we could also redefine human to exclude certain minority populations that tend to have a higher crime rate than the general population. I'd say the arguments for excluding people like this is far stronger than excluding psychopaths, who are often amongst the most productive members of society.

And what standard are we to use for 'evil', perhaps we could define the giving of charity as evil, since it helps the weak who should perish survive and, in doing so, weakens the human gene pool. Likewise, the passing on of a birth defect or genetic disease. At some point and some place in history, all these things have been regarded by society as evil. Should those guilty be killed?

I'd be careful about contracting the definition of human or claiming a natural law justification to kill, for, when all is said and done, you really don't know who's going to be left out. And also be careful about applying natural law to human civilization, the true natural law is not what the Romans, in their ignorance, conceived it to be; rather, it is the law enshrined by Darwin: survival of the fittest. The natural law is that the strong kill the weak and those who are unfit to survive a cruel and violent world are deserving of pain, suffering, and death.
constantine is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2012, 01:23 PM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
As long as we're redefining the definition of human, why not use a definition more advantageous to our society. Why not base it on intelligence or productivity. Better a productive psychopath than a 'normal' person on welfare, for the former contributes to economic activity giving me the opportunity to gain more wealth whereas the latter grants me no benefit and is merely a burden. Perhaps we could also redefine human to exclude certain minority populations that tend to have a higher crime rate than the general population. I'd say the arguments for excluding people like this is far stronger than excluding psychopaths, who are often amongst the most productive members of society.

And what standard are we to use for 'evil', perhaps we could define the giving of charity as evil, since it helps the weak who should perish survive and, in doing so, weakens the human gene pool. Likewise, the passing on of a birth defect or genetic disease. At some point and some place in history, all these things have been regarded by society as evil. Should those guilty be killed?

I'd be careful about contracting the definition of human or claiming a natural law justification to kill, for, when all is said and done, you really don't know who's going to be left out. And also be careful about applying natural law to human civilization, the true natural law is not what the Romans, in their ignorance, conceived it to be; rather, it is the law enshrined by Darwin: survival of the fittest. The natural law is that the strong kill the weak and those who are unfit to survive a cruel and violent world are deserving of pain, suffering, and death.
Productivity and economic activity isn't a humane quality.
Compassion and sympathy are humane qualities.

You can't measure niceness, sympathy or compassion with how productive an individual is or how much wealth he/she is contributing to society.

For instance, a true friend is someone who don't let you down just because you didn't pay the friend some more money.

I am so sick and tired and I am in fact quite angry at this materialistic world view that dominates the entire western hemisphere these days.

They may be right that everything is basically down to atoms and molecules interacting together in a non-strategical way with no purpose whatsoever and that Darwinian evolution is ensuring that the most fit are the ones most likely to survive. That's true so far.

But that certainly doesn't mean we should embrace this. Its like saying:
"The law states A and B. Therefore it should stay like this. "

The fact that the facts are like these, are NOT valid arguments that they should stay like so.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:05 PM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
Productivity and economic activity isn't a humane quality.
Compassion and sympathy are humane qualities.

You can't measure niceness, sympathy or compassion with how productive an individual is or how much wealth he/she is contributing to society.

For instance, a true friend is someone who don't let you down just because you didn't pay the friend some more money.

I am so sick and tired and I am in fact quite angry at this materialistic world view that dominates the entire western hemisphere these days.

They may be right that everything is basically down to atoms and molecules interacting together in a non-strategical way with no purpose whatsoever and that Darwinian evolution is ensuring that the most fit are the ones most likely to survive. That's true so far.

But that certainly doesn't mean we should embrace this. Its like saying:
"The law states A and B. Therefore it should stay like this. "

The fact that the facts are like these, are NOT valid arguments that they should stay like so.
Sympathy and compassion are primitive instincts shared by many social animals. You can find these characteristics in higher non-human mammals as well. What is unique to humanity is a complex reasoning ability, not our primitive instincts and emotions. Economic activity is based on this reasoning ability, the ability for two humans to realize that it's in both of their interests to exchange a number of resources they have in surplus for a number of resources that are scarce to them and, further, the ability to place relative values on a great variety of different resources; then there's the complex speech patterns and social interaction required for trade. Economic activity is possibly one of its fullest expressions of our humanity. The materialism of our world is simply part of what it means to be human.
constantine is online now  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:10 PM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Sympathy and compassion are primitive instincts shared by many social animals. You can find these characteristics in higher non-human mammals as well. What is unique to humanity is a complex reasoning ability, not our primitive instincts and emotions. Economic activity is based on this reasoning ability, the ability for two humans to realize that it's in both of their interests to exchange a number of resources they have in surplus for a number of resources that are scarce to them and, further, the ability to place relative values on a great variety of different resources; then there's the complex speech patterns and social interaction required for trade. Economic activity is possibly one of its fullest expressions of our humanity. The materialism of our world is simply part of what it means to be human.
Accumulation of wealth, communication and competion are all down to the very basics of life itself.
Other species are accumulating ressources too. They are communicating too (cells and bacteria are found to communicate).
Competition is a basic darwinian principle, and applies to plants as well.

While the ability to reason is a human trait, I agree with that, it can be used to either emphasize Sympathy and Compassion as shared by other higher and - to a degree non-human mammels, or to emphasize COMPETITION and Tool-making which is seen in lower species too.

Now... which trait is more close to human ability of the two? Certainly not competition. It exists even on cellular levels.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 03:09 PM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
Accumulation of wealth, communication and competion are all down to the very basics of life itself.
Other species are accumulating ressources too. They are communicating too (cells and bacteria are found to communicate).
Competition is a basic darwinian principle, and applies to plants as well.

While the ability to reason is a human trait, I agree with that, it can be used to either emphasize Sympathy and Compassion as shared by other higher and - to a degree non-human mammels, or to emphasize COMPETITION and Tool-making which is seen in lower species too.

Now... which trait is more close to human ability of the two? Certainly not competition. It exists even on cellular levels.
Competition is an inescapable part of life, it's the first corollary to the law of scarcity. Competition is the one characteristic we can be relatively assured to have in common with even the most alien life form. It is an inevitable result of finite resources and thus, assuming the universe is finite, it's inescapable.

However, human economic activity is a very unique and sophisticated way of dealing with this inescapable reality. In the wild, competition usually takes the form of either killing your competition directly or eating their food supply before they can get enough to survive and thus killing them indirectly. But human economic activity is based on mutual consent: a transaction only takes place if both the buyer and seller agree to it. There's still a disparity in power since the laws of nature dictate we acquire a certain amount of resources to survive. But it's an improvement on killing your neighbor to take his goat, then letting your excess supply of apples rot because you have more than you need...when you could have just traded your surplus apples for your neighbor's goat and everyone would have been happy.

It's not the fact that we acquire resources that is special, it's the method we have devised for addressing scarcity, the most fundamental problem humanity and all life faces, not through violence and force, but rather through transactions engaged in by mutual consent. In other words, human economic activity.
constantine is online now  
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:06 PM   #16
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Competition is an inescapable part of life, it's the first corollary to the law of scarcity. Competition is the one characteristic we can be relatively assured to have in common with even the most alien life form. It is an inevitable result of finite resources and thus, assuming the universe is finite, it's inescapable.

However, human economic activity is a very unique and sophisticated way of dealing with this inescapable reality. In the wild, competition usually takes the form of either killing your competition directly or eating their food supply before they can get enough to survive and thus killing them indirectly. But human economic activity is based on mutual consent: a transaction only takes place if both the buyer and seller agree to it. There's still a disparity in power since the laws of nature dictate we acquire a certain amount of resources to survive. But it's an improvement on killing your neighbor to take his goat, then letting your excess supply of apples rot because you have more than you need...when you could have just traded your surplus apples for your neighbor's goat and everyone would have been happy.

It's not the fact that we acquire resources that is special, it's the method we have devised for addressing scarcity, the most fundamental problem humanity and all life faces, not through violence and force, but rather through transactions engaged in by mutual consent. In other words, human economic activity.
Methods or not, it is still down to our very basic instincts. Compassion is not a very basic instinct in all living things.
philosopher is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
conscience, justice, practical


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Real Politics to Conscience Politics philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 36 December 8th, 2012 09:34 AM
Does the study of history need practical application? Oakenwise General History 24 October 11th, 2012 06:17 AM
Is there any practical purpose for the Commonwealth? Mohammed the Persian General History 21 September 23rd, 2011 07:24 PM
It’s about conscience, stupid; not consciousness coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 November 23rd, 2009 11:47 AM
Is God a practical joker? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 May 4th, 2009 12:33 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.