You speak of consent here as though it is not just another existential contraption in the is/ought world. Why do some consent to do some things that others would never consent to it? Why do many consent to certain rules of behaviors in one historical, cultural and experiential context that would seem outrageous to consent to in others?
Can philosophers pin down those rules of behavior that all rational and virtuous human berings are obligated to consent to…if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous?
And for those who argue that the unborn have a natural right to life, what of their consent to have that life shredded and then disposed of?
And, for any number of people, they consent to bring life into this world precisely because their own life is not shitty at all. Or because they consent to believe in a God able to provide Divine Justice for all those who do consent to have faith in Him.
Which particular parents in which particular context regarding which particular behaviors? Behaviors deemed by some to make the children better off while deemed by others to make them worse off.
How is the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political power here less reasonable than the components of your own moral and political narrative?
Well, the dead babies don’t give their consent do they? On the other hand, how do we explain why some refuse to give their consent to the idea/belief that they are really human babies at all. Why do some consent instead to refer to them as “clumps of cells”. Why do some consent to believe that human life starts at conception, while others consent to believe it starts with the beating heart, while others give their consent to those fetuses able to survive outside the womb? Or even those who give their consent to actual infanticide…for whatever personal reason they consent to believe in?
Note to others: What exactly is he arguing herer?
No, the problem I have with you is that I do not respect the depth of your intelligence. You make arguments like the ones above as, from my own frame of mind, my rendition of the typical objectivist would. You assert things to be true in a series of “general descriptions” of human interactions and you often heap scorn on those who refuse to toe your line.
But that is still no less an “existential contraption” of my own. I’m only expressing my honest reaction to you here and now given the manner in which “I” have become predisposed to react to arguments like yours.
General description arguments like this:
Arguments that will then reconfigure into huffing and puffing:
Bottom line [my own, here and now]? I’m just unsure of the extent to which you may well not be all together in the head. Your points [at times] seem so bizarre [or extreme] to me that I begin to wonder if unbeknownst even to yourself you are just making this stuff up as you go along. Or are you just being ironic?
I’m simply not sure how to pin you down. You don’t make much sense to me. To “me”. And because of that I hardly ever take the time to read your posts.
But, again, that is just me. My own personal [spontaneous] reaction to you given the manner in which such reactions are understood by me to be just existential contraptions rooted in my own particular “I”. I may well be completely wrong about you. But I can only consent to reacting to you as I actually do react to you from post to post.