bsit

Sam Harris talks about this in the Waking up book. Highly recommend giving it some thought.

What a wonderful day to have eyes

The materialists hate this one trick.

I literally cannot continue this conversation before we understand each other on the nature of wanting. Or like, I can... but we'd just keep going over the same things, reducing us both to just practicing intellectual wankery. And I have a feeling you have more self-respect than that, if you think that my argumentation is "unbecoming of an intellectual".

And in any case we've been at this for 4 (very delighful) hours but this body really wants a different activity for now.

Pity, I had so much fun with this discussion. For that I thank you. Lemme know if you want to return to it later.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about justice with you before you explain what is an acceptable want and how it differs from a want in a controlled population.

“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”

The fact that you ask this from me specifically highlights the problem in your arguments. It is your view that necessitates the existence of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors. I don't think such a thing exists. I don't think it's possible to have a want independent of imposition. However when you say that "the notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population" as an argument against me positing that the guy in the comic is doing what he wants, implies that in your mind there is a "pure" want, independent of any imposition. You then refer to the rat as an example of consent, implying that a biological drive to survive is an example of a pure want. If you wish to make the case that a biological want is an example of a pure want, then I can say that the guy in the comic is following his biological drive to survive over any personal opinions on wearing pants - meaning a want is applicable to a controlled population.

How do you defend applying human idea of consent to a rat, but very conveniently for your own argument, refuse to apply oppressor to the hawk?

Simply restating a human-centric definition of consent doesn't address the lack of consistency in your position.

The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It's following a biological drive to survive. "Consent" remains a human construction. The rat isn't arguing that it "should" not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being "oppressed" by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a "controlled population", meaning as per you own words "The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population." And if you want to say that he hawk isn't oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.

Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?

Consent is also just a belief some people want to have. I'm not saying that it's a bad belief to have, I'm in full support of it but that does NOT give me some divine right to impose the belief of it on others. We're talking about wants, and that necessarily leads to a discussion on whose wants matter more. I am of the opinion that nobody's wants are inherently (as in, outside human constructed narratives, cultures, norms) more valuable than those of others. I happen to value human well-being and respecting consent logically follows from that. However, because of exactly that I cannot impose consent on those who don't believe in it. As such, I can only defend myself and others who agree with me against those who would try to impose their beliefs on me but I cannot go out and force them to obey me. This necessarily leads to the situation where I HAVE to accept certain results that may be undesirable in a realistic scenario. Including death in the hands of those that would oppress me. And that's on me to do for myself - but that is also freedom for me to live according to my ideals without imposing them on others, Meaning, I accept that I can't have the cake if I want to eat it. IT IS NOT EASY but it is what I have realistic power over.

I really don't see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don't want the dead babies.

We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn't start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don't want to be shaken out of the trance where they're constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.