That’s what I mean. If it’s government stuff, then we skip the
Self-government respects consent, goofus.
But my self government forbids taxes. So who is violating my consentual self government by collecting them against my, well, you know, conzzisent?
Again: Comparing inanimate objects to moving, living, operating systems.
Is a lightbulb a rock?
Are you a rock?
Well its you who made the distinction, isnt it? You claimed that consent in nature cannot be given.
As such you erased the agency and will of all living beings, reducing the concept to nothing more than a privileged legal framework reserved for human to human interactions with the far far out possibility of extending the concept to other “yet to meet our standards” life.
Thats the difference.
The moment something display’s its own will and value system by which it operates, it has set it’s boundaries. If you disregard those boundaries, you disregard it’s will and agency, thus consent.
Why should animation make a difference regarding purpose? Specifically?
False. Consent is the why. We are in nature—nothing happens outside nature. YOU claimed there is no why. That claim self-destructs.
That^ needs to be read alongside my comments that follow it in that thread. Mutual entailment does not preclude subsumption, and synthesis does not (cannot) imply collapse when it comes to triadic mutual entailment.
A consent-violating boundary is no boundary at all—we are obligated to violate it.
You aren’t self-governing. You’re self-spoiling. You can’t benefit from a system & claim to be exempt from contributing to it. Others are only obligated to respect your consents that are consent-respecting (non-cancelling).
Now…I am not advocating for abstracted currency or taxes that are disproportionate (& so consent violating)—there are more concrete ways to affirm/capitalize on (not profit from, but prioritize/empower) the consents of all stakeholders.
We started this exchange over function. You claim function cannot be purpose.
But now you drifted off so far that you are pulling examples for your point that are devoid of everything, including function.
This results now in a situation where you moved the goalpost so far that you are intentionally or unintentionally, but suggesting that abiotic objects could potentially have a purpose.
And yet you keep on eluding the answer as to what that purpose would be and who assigned it.
Shouldnt you consider putting up answers in favor of your own position too instead of just repeating why why why as the goalpost slides into oblivion?
I quote:
So that was your assertion. Not mine.
You just said that you are obligated to violate life.
Thats one spectacular sentence and position to hold.
How does my assertion translate to (according to your interpretation) “consent cannot be given in nature”—where else would it be given? In order to remove it by choice, it has to be already possible in nature. From the same reply you quoted:
And how does violating life-violation… violate life???
Due to “impossible if consent is not a choice”
You relegated consent to choice (but since living beings make choices all the time), you also relegated choice to a higher standard, probably conscious and informed choice.
The TL;DR is that living beings constantly make choices, so consent is perfectly possible for all life.
Because life disregards consent.
If life cared about consent then living beings could not harm eachother.
Conclusively your sentence means that its a duty to violate the natural order and thus life itself.
You are the one needing to prove your claim that violation is the order. That makes absolutely zero sense, so good luck.
And just because you wouldn’t consent to a natural mechanism doesn’t mean consent is being violated. Sometimes you gotta break it to fix it — not all harm is a violation.
A decision is not a moral (or immoral) one unless it is chosen (in respect or violation of another’s consent-respecting consent)—but that choice is our innate (natural) capacity.
Simply put: There cannot be consent (why/motive force) without a consenter and a mechanism (how/motion/action) for consent, but consent cannot be reduced (collapsed into) mechanism or the object (what/that within and between which motive force moves/acts) within which mechanism operates.
Likewise, unless some consenter(s) put that/their object into motion (or they always move &/or subsume all motion)…ain’t happenin.
The WHY is:
full stop - respect consent-respecting consent.
The WHY is not:
went too far… go back
A lot of beautiful stuff violates no law, and just takes pleasure in consent affirmation. Ethics says yes to that—there is no limit there.
What on earth are you on about? Have you noticed the entire thing out there called survival of the fittest? Natural selection? Of all forms of life murdering eachother?
What do you mean i need to prove that violation is the order? What do you mean it makes no sense? Do you think a lion gives a shit whether or not you consent to being mauled?
Its not my position that makes LITERALLY zero sense. Its yours.
The hell are you basing your idea on that the order is consent?
So being murdered does not mean your consent is being violated.
This is getting better and better.
You are making the choice every time you eat.
You are choosing to eat. You are choosing to hunt. You are choosing to kill. You are choosing to self-sustain.
And for each of those, you can choose not to.
You are trying to make an absolutely hypocritical double standard by essentially claiming that “If i need to do it to stay alive, then its not a question of choice or morality”, by which you prove my point:
a.) Violation is the natural order, but even before that:
b.) Thats not how morality works. Morality is not based on “its okay to do it if i need to”.
Your position begs belief.
That might make some kind of sense if the system was optional. I never gave my consent for any government thing.
Are you confused maybe about the word “consent?” That would be a bad sign.
I claimed that assigning purpose on the basis of function is fallacious, and showed how.
Except for the fact that systems exist which have function as their purpose.
You attempted to argue teleonomy and that systems can have purpose beyond their mechanisms, for which i asked you to bring evidence for said purpose.
And in classic philosophy forums fashion this would be not a valid topic if i wouldnt have to ask something 5 times and have it ignored 5 times on it as well.
So to conclude: Such systems exist.
You dont think so, but refuse to contend with proving or even evidencing your claim.
I don’t understand what you mean, but ethics (if it exists) never was a human invention. What is a human invention is morals
Are you confused about the words “legal tender“? It’s like one of those things where if you use the software, you agree to the user agreement. You might be able to switch up the currencies (even to digital currency, including crypto), but you’re prolly gonna get taxed regardless. I’m speaking from ignorance, but I also don’t care. Just don’t exploit people, and don’t expect something when you don’t contribute anything—especially if you’re a hoarder and you actually have employees you don’t pay a living wage (while resisting the urge to hike up prices to take all the income from them you just increased). Yeah I know you’re the culprit even though you act like you’re whining about it. Otherwise disregard. I guess you’re really good at fake fighting, after all.
…out where there aren’t any consent structures, you mean?
You can’t violate consent unless you recognize it.
Recognition is primary. If a lion were to eat me, it would not be because it was violating my consent. It had no idea whether I consented or not—it was just running the lion program. It has to be tamed/nurtured by humans … who tamed/nurtured us?
It’s not murder if the mechanism does not recognize consent.
Did you just pull that out of your arse? What did I say that has anything to do with that? I’m not bothering to reply to this. Respond to the actual content I have provided. Try to keep it in line with the original post before your rabbit hole goes all the way to Hades.