I know humans do not inherently want to give their lives for others, because most of them eat pigs. Pigs passed the mirror test, so they are probably sentient. Why do you not see them eating chicken instead of pigs?
Similarly, if trapped on a deserted island, they would eat each other.
“Like I said”–Do you mean “As I said.”?
I know of a case of a child raised by wolves and cases of children locked away so that they had no social influences. Are these instances what you mean by feral? The child raised by wolves could possibly survive on a deserted island. The child locked away may be feral, but could not survive there.
As for eating pigs or cows, Mr. Reasonable noted that we raise them to be eaten. And how do you know that chickens are not sentient? Life eats life on this planet, regardless of whether that life is plant or animal. There has been some research done that claims plants are sentient.(Bose, et.al.)
Not all people on a deserted island would resort to cannibalism.
No child can survive on a desert island, as I defined it. It is defined as a place with no food.
If a bunch of little kids were on a semi-deserted island, with some food, but no wolves to teach them, I don’t know what will happen. That is why I want to see the experiment.
“Pigs are bred to be eaten” What does that have to do with whether it is right or wrong? Your argument seems to be “That’s just the way it is, therefore it is right.” You can’t say that it is wrong to kill sentient beings, then say it is okay to kill other sentient beings (pigs are probably sentient because they passed the mirror test.) Either tell me its okay to kill sentient beings because there’s a lot of people I don’t like and would rather do without, or its not okay to kill sentient beings, in that case, I won’t do anything and leave them be. It’s inconsistent otherwise.
It’s like saying “Everyone 14 year old boy must go to the local warehouse and have their fingers cut off as a sacrifice to the gods. Therefore, severing their fingers is okay, because the 14 year olds are raised to do it.”
Plants and other organisms are probably not sentient, because they didn’t pass the mirror test. That is a flimsy argument anyway, organisms have different sentience levels. For instance we say it is morally pass’e to harm humans, because they have a high sentience level. If plants and rocks are sentient, they have a very low microscopic sentience level, like bugs.
I mean, are we practical jokers? If bugs were and plants were as sentient as humans, why should we drive cars? When a fly accidentally hits the windshield or we drive over blade of grass, should it be not deemed the moral equivalent of killing or injuring a human, literally vehicular manslaughter?
I don’t think you are interested in truth, just in spawning countermeasures so you can feel comfortable with your childish delusions.
I might have paid some attention to your counter arguments, but for this stupid remark. BTW, get a course in
English 101. Your grammar sucks.
You are so egotistical and weak all you can say is my grammar sucks. Child mind in an old man’s body…
You prove my points. You have no argument devoid of ad hom.
You are an egotistical delusional maniac. Im sure someone other than me can see it.
I gave you FOUR POSTS OF ACTUAL RESPONSES TO YOUr POST.
And then you post back NOTHING, nothing but a lame ad hom.
And then I remark about that ad hom, and post an ad hom back,and somehow I AM the one who does lame ad homs?
Grow up, kid.
The four posts did nothing to further the OP. I’d suggest it is you who needs to grow up and shed your infantile forms of debate. I’d be happy if you never posted in any of my threads. At least then, they would stay on topic. Pay attention to your grammar; it proves who you are by what you have to say. The only time I’ve seen worse is when I taught high school English classes.
Here we go around again.
I posted a direct response to one of your posts, and rather than continue the discussion, you act like a pathetic coward and pull the “notontopicenoughformystandards” card.
You fail utterly.
Please refrain from posting in my thread.
Bye, woman…
Remember,grammar,not philosphical content, is the most important thing…
Have fun in tard land…
The topic here is whether or not the preadolescent boys, stranded on an island reverted to savagery because of social indoctrination or because of something innate within themselves. Perhaps it could be both?
I’m not a woman.
Philosophical content depends on one’s ability to state philosophy correctly.
If tard land is away from Trixie , I’m all for being there.
Here is the end scene of the film:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHy34EWlpw[/youtube]
Unbelievable!
More likely, de conditioning of rules of civilization. It’s not that the innate animal within comes to the fore, rather, that changing conditions change the rules of the game.
The children had no knowledge of pre-civilized conditions or behavior, they only reacted to how societal norms degressed as an accompaniment to the brute forces of nature. Their behavior signified a parallel world of natural violence.
The Rousseau project was an attempt to give credence to a wished for society, to counterbalance that violence. This was the age of hope, in the sustenance of an ideal world. I doubt Rousseau saw the noble savage as anything but a useful attempt to counter Hobbes’.
Rousseau gave his children in an orphan asylum! He preached water and drank wine.