“things that humans should not do” are distinct from “things that humboldt squid should not do.”
It’s possible that there is a thing that humans should not do and humbolt squid should not do.
On the other tentacle, as humans differ from each other, there is no reason to think that every thing one particular human should not do is necessarily something all other humans should not do. “the same evolutionary processes” isn’t quite true, or I wouldn’t be able to do barely more push-ups than pull-ups, for example. (However many one can do of either, the ratio for most people is many push-ups per pull-up.)
whether they are right or I am.
That’s like asking who the protagonist in WickedandThe Wizard of Oz is.
I just don’t see how your morality sequence helps to argue the fact against another neurologically-intact human (from a very different cultural background) who is convinced otherwise.
They are compelled to see that I think it is wrong, and that it is not universally objectively not-wrong, and that it doesn’t square with other values of theirs (if it doesn’t, which it probably won’t, though it will for some that are less like the other humans), and that my values don’t postulate a deontological impurity to using force against them if persuasion isn’t enough.
If I am in another culture, there may not be a sequence of words to convince them of my point of view. What the morality sequence does is make one comfortable with using violence against those who rape children. There’s no magic spell to utter to convince all possible minds, so it’s OK to resort to the last resort. It’s OK even though my values are the result of my circumstances, as are theirs—it’s OK by my values.
As for those whose values say it’s always right to use violence against me, or against anyone, or just to uphold the right to rape children, or whatever, I’ll try and convince them otherwise, and failing that I’ll use force against them and not blind myself to the fact I can’t necessarily convince them otherwise. Humans are sufficiently similar to me that most will agree, in fact an illusion that there is one true “right” may emerge from right(me) being so similar to right(you) and right(him) and right(her).
As for those who think they think that child rape is always wrong and that the use of violence is always wrong, I’d like to convince them, it would be useful to convince them, all else equal I don’t want to compel them to do anything, but I don’t feel the need to try and contrive an argument to convince every one of them because it’s not necessarily possible. I don’t have to convince each of them, I am determined to be happy in a world where others disagree, I’ll not let them get in my way of opposing child rape, and I am determined to use no more or less violence than is optimal whether they are a multitude shrieking at me to never use force or they blink out of existence and every extant being glories in violence.
It’s possible that there is a thing that humans should not do and humbolt squid should not do.
On the other tentacle, as humans differ from each other, there is no reason to think that every thing one particular human should not do is necessarily something all other humans should not do. “the same evolutionary processes” isn’t quite true, or I wouldn’t be able to do barely more push-ups than pull-ups, for example. (However many one can do of either, the ratio for most people is many push-ups per pull-up.)
That’s like asking who the protagonist in Wicked and The Wizard of Oz is.
They are compelled to see that I think it is wrong, and that it is not universally objectively not-wrong, and that it doesn’t square with other values of theirs (if it doesn’t, which it probably won’t, though it will for some that are less like the other humans), and that my values don’t postulate a deontological impurity to using force against them if persuasion isn’t enough.
If I am in another culture, there may not be a sequence of words to convince them of my point of view. What the morality sequence does is make one comfortable with using violence against those who rape children. There’s no magic spell to utter to convince all possible minds, so it’s OK to resort to the last resort. It’s OK even though my values are the result of my circumstances, as are theirs—it’s OK by my values.
As for those whose values say it’s always right to use violence against me, or against anyone, or just to uphold the right to rape children, or whatever, I’ll try and convince them otherwise, and failing that I’ll use force against them and not blind myself to the fact I can’t necessarily convince them otherwise. Humans are sufficiently similar to me that most will agree, in fact an illusion that there is one true “right” may emerge from right(me) being so similar to right(you) and right(him) and right(her).
As for those who think they think that child rape is always wrong and that the use of violence is always wrong, I’d like to convince them, it would be useful to convince them, all else equal I don’t want to compel them to do anything, but I don’t feel the need to try and contrive an argument to convince every one of them because it’s not necessarily possible. I don’t have to convince each of them, I am determined to be happy in a world where others disagree, I’ll not let them get in my way of opposing child rape, and I am determined to use no more or less violence than is optimal whether they are a multitude shrieking at me to never use force or they blink out of existence and every extant being glories in violence.
This is helpful. Thank you.