I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.
Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as “natural”. Cats hunt mice. It’s natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.
Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument “natural” are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.
And that’s usually where the wheels come off. We’re animals. We have animal urges. They’re informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.
We’re animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we’re animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don’t suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of “natural” and “acceptable” and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.
This isn’t a new idea. I can’t stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.
What would it mean to you, to stop pretending to edit: NOT be animals?
To “Stop pretending we are not animals” to me is to stop the antropocentric way of seeing nature and the universe.
For example, is not that certain animals have “human-like” behavior, but rather that we, as animals, share the certain behaviors with other animals.
And I’m convinced that, if we understand other animals more, we would understand ourselves better.
But like, practically, what does that mean?
I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.
Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as “natural”. Cats hunt mice. It’s natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.
Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument “natural” are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.
And that’s usually where the wheels come off. We’re animals. We have animal urges. They’re informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.
We’re animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we’re animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don’t suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of “natural” and “acceptable” and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.
This isn’t a new idea. I can’t stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.