From: mitchell wilson <lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:46:16 -0700
> while this response was not addressed to me, i feel the need to reply. you
> are relying on the supposed validity of many premises in your argument:
> a. killing is not natural
> b. no sane human has ever WANTED to kill someone
> c. only a psychopath wants to kill
> d. there is an essential human nature
> e. all human beings are social creatures
> f. killing is essentially synonymous with rape.
> it seems to me that the burden of proof is now in your hands. humans are
> animals. there are other animals whose "nature" includes the things you are
> arguing against. why do you assume that humans do not have those instincts
> in there nature? if there is a human nature, is it not possible that we have
> replaced that nature with a "social" nature or social instincts? society is
> very possibly a human construction. to assume that how humans are today is
> the realization of how they should be or are by "nature" (ideally or
> actually), is a grand assumption about that supposed nature of human beings.
> in fact, doesn't our theorizing about these matters automatically
> predetermine our conclusions since we are part of a society? just wondering.
hi. interesting response. but i was not the one making the initial
claims. i was responding to a person saying that killing other humans
is in our nature. so, the essentiality of a human nature had already
been assumed, and this is were i started.
so, given that there is a human nature, the only thing that i needed to
do was to show flaws, gaps in the argument that that nature is to kill.
i did not need prove that humans had a "nature". in fact, i didn't need
to prove a thing. in refuting a universal, like it is human nature to
kill another human, all i needed to do was to show individual
exceptions. and while i went off on a couple of tangents, which
obviously obscured my argument, nevertheless i had accomplished my
goal: showing that it is not human nature to kill another human.
as far as my premise that humans are social creatures, well, how doubts
that? common sense tells me that we are social. any counter argument
has the burden of proof, not the common sense, self-evident one. while
i may be wrong, it is certainly not extraordinary to say that humans are
social creatures. let me ask you, as a child did you feel the need to