The range of behavior that historically has occurred “voluntary in normal healthy adult humans” is very very wide.
Indeed. That is exactly the point.
Not psychosis but psychopathy.
That’s what I meant. My fingers just typed something differnt.
I stand by my assertion in the parent post.
Which one exactly?
Humans have no general aversion to eating other humans.
The point is that killing/eating other humans/animals is nothing special. It is part of human behavior in so far as it is no outlier or random/accidental (mis)behavior but in the normal action continuum well integrated with suitable affects moderating it. That is the reason why it can be socially moderated/ritualized/tabooed.
And this doesn’t say anything about large-society-ethics. But large-society-ethics has to consider this part of human wiring/complex utility function.
I also stand by my assertion. Anyway I don’t think that we really disagree about the facts. I just guess that you seem to infer that I derive relevantly different ethics from it.
But that’s not what you said. You said that humans “have no general aversion to eating other humans”.
Humans, for example, do have an aversion to death, pain, and hunger—and yet suicides, self-flagellation, and fasts are are recurring motif in human history.
Maybe it’s a language issue. “Have an aversion to X” does not mean “will never ever do X”. It means “would prefer not to do X, but will do it if necessary”.
Which one exactly?
This: ”… that humans do have a general aversion to killing other humans and that they manage to overcome that aversion rather easily.”
Looks a bit so.I meant it a bit more like repugnance or atrocity. Rereading the dialog it is also not clear whether the stress is on “general” or “aversion”.
Nonetheless I’d think that your “would prefer not to do X, but will do it if necessary” is still too strong given the example of the Yanomamö. At least it is not strong enough to allow cooperation of any the villages within ‘recorded history’. How about “would prefer not to do X to an enemy, if the risk is too high” or “would prefer not to do X to an outsider if indifferent”. Though even that may be too weak. I think there is not really an aversion itstead killing is countered primarily by empathy (which is a strong emotion easily activated by living beings) and risk (physical and social).
The range of behavior that historically has occurred “voluntary in normal healthy adult humans” is very very wide.
Not psychosis but psychopathy.
Yes, sometimes. However I stand by my assertion in the parent post.
Indeed. That is exactly the point.
That’s what I meant. My fingers just typed something differnt.
Which one exactly?
The point is that killing/eating other humans/animals is nothing special. It is part of human behavior in so far as it is no outlier or random/accidental (mis)behavior but in the normal action continuum well integrated with suitable affects moderating it. That is the reason why it can be socially moderated/ritualized/tabooed.
And this doesn’t say anything about large-society-ethics. But large-society-ethics has to consider this part of human wiring/complex utility function.
I also stand by my assertion. Anyway I don’t think that we really disagree about the facts. I just guess that you seem to infer that I derive relevantly different ethics from it.
But that’s not what you said. You said that humans “have no general aversion to eating other humans”.
Humans, for example, do have an aversion to death, pain, and hunger—and yet suicides, self-flagellation, and fasts are are recurring motif in human history.
Maybe it’s a language issue. “Have an aversion to X” does not mean “will never ever do X”. It means “would prefer not to do X, but will do it if necessary”.
This: ”… that humans do have a general aversion to killing other humans and that they manage to overcome that aversion rather easily.”
Looks a bit so.I meant it a bit more like repugnance or atrocity. Rereading the dialog it is also not clear whether the stress is on “general” or “aversion”. Nonetheless I’d think that your “would prefer not to do X, but will do it if necessary” is still too strong given the example of the Yanomamö. At least it is not strong enough to allow cooperation of any the villages within ‘recorded history’. How about “would prefer not to do X to an enemy, if the risk is too high” or “would prefer not to do X to an outsider if indifferent”. Though even that may be too weak. I think there is not really an aversion itstead killing is countered primarily by empathy (which is a strong emotion easily activated by living beings) and risk (physical and social).