Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 12:26:43 PM

In short, you'd better stop nitpicking Undecided

I'm enjoying this discussion, I don't mean to insult or offend you, hope that is clear

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 12:26:43 PM

I think it is evident from my post that adaptability is not something specific to humans only but inherent in all living beings. It is not a trait of human nature which distinguishes it from other creatures, that's all Cool

Now I get what you're saying. Yes, I agree that if we consider "human nature" to be something which sets humans apart from other living beings, then adaptability is not it.
Neither is forming social hierarchies, though - you can observe that sort of behavior in primates, packs of wolves, elephants.

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 12:15:09 PM

Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority... Grin

I don't see this as a dualism. Like "universal set of rules means everything sucks" and "no universal set of rules means everything is great". What I am saying is that if you have lots of options to choose from, you're more likely to find one you like and agree with, compared to a situation where you have only one set of rules forced upon you.

To be honest I don't come at this from a moral "what is right" perspective at all. Instead I tend to look at it from a pragmatic, process-oriented perspective. What is most likely to yield positive results? (yes, positive results is a moral value-judgement as well)

EDIT: response to hawker

Quote from: Hawker on November 22, 2013, 12:29:40 PM

I think what you are doing is ignoring human reality in pursuit of a dream species. People are not trustworthy by default.

But that's like, you know, just your opinion, man. Grin

Seriously, I won't try to persuade you that the statement of "people are not trustworthy by default" might not be true, you seem to have made up your mind about that and that's OK.

I might try to persuade you to think about the possibility that even if that statement is true, the implications of it are still better served in anarchy than in the present situation.

Quote from: Hawker on November 22, 2013, 12:29:40 PM

If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit. Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.

I sympathize with your conviction in moral ideals. But you see there is a problem with this approach, don't you? Who gets to decide which moral standard to enforce? It's quite easy for most people to agree on an issue like genital mutilation (but still it exists...), yet other issues are less clear. And don't forget: people are NOT trustworthy. How can we trust them to set and enforce the right moral standards, then? Seems to me, they'd be enforcing crooked standards - which seems to be going on today. I'd just argue that it's mostly because the system (environment) has corrupted the individuals occupying its seats of power, not because the people in the system are inherently crooked.

I realize I probably won't convince you of anything, there's no need to. I'm just typing out my thoughts. Maybe someone will enjoy them.