david_h wrote:Nanohedron wrote:...how do we dare to legislate based on what we cannot define? One sure marker that we can't define it is the very fact that there will be no universal consensus on how to define "nature", and another is that we can't even say we're right, because we don't know.
In the original context of PB+J's post, inalienable rights and equality rather than the cow, I think it is "how did
they dare".
All I can say in my defense is that 'twas PB+J who brought up the cow.
But I admit I went off on a tangent. Still, I can extend my notions to human "nature" as well: For every example we can point to and say, "That's human nature," we'll find an example to negate it. A human newborn is needy and demanding, and this is natural if it is to survive, but this is also true of other altricial animals (that is, those that are born helpless and in need of care). If this neediness is carried through into adulthood, it's considered abnormal. But is growing out of neediness and into independence real human nature? The continually needy human exists just as surely as you or I. What I propose is that it is merely a convenience, but never a truth, to say that such a person is at variance with "human nature". Likewise, how do we compare the altruist with the sociopath, or curiosity with willful ignorance, in terms of human nature? We can't, because we can see how "human nature" eludes being pinned down. As with the cow, we can only say for sure that we are bound by the condition of our being human. And that covers a world of ground.
I guess what I'm saying is that invoking "human nature" in manifestos is well and good, but it's a rickety house, because it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
david_h wrote:Didn't they dare by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident" which allows that other people might not so it needed to be said?
I would agree with that entirely.
david_h wrote:Contrast this to "endowed by their Creator" where - for them in their time and King George - there being a creator was unquestionable (so a consensus on how to define "nature" was not an issue).
Actually, at the time a form of agnosticism was very common among the framers of US revolutionary thought, but they were also very aware that this stance could jeopardize public sympathy if they went too far with it. They instead called themselves "Theists", which was apparently acceptable enough. From there, it's not a step too far to acknowledge that a higher Creative Agency might be involved. Rather than God, "Providence" was most often the usual buzzword, but I think "their Creator" here was a consciously judicious choice, because it covers all the bases. These people were thinkers, and I suspect that they didn't personally adhere to the notion of a consensual definition of "nature"; nevertheless most people did think that way, and the framers understood this. Might as well go there if the argument has leverage in the public mind. And I don't find that cynical; rather, it's inclusive.
david_h wrote:Nanohedron wrote:Consider this: In our society, sense of community isn't a priority, and we learn this from the cradle.
I would like to consider but can you clarify 'our society'? The quote you opened with was from someone in England. 21st century society ? Urban society? USA society?
Good point, and I'm glad you brought it up, because I realized it's problematic. I think that apart from tribal societies and certain non-tribal exceptions where survival depends on mutual assistance and regard, for the most part any complex society you could name won't stress community as an overarching principle, or if it does, it's restricted to the inner-inner circle. Hence my clumsy use of the word "our".
As an American, I have a very strong sense of being part of a very large
American family, and that means obligations, forbearance and consideration, not just rights alone. This feeling extends beyond any divisive factions. But not all Americans have this sense, and I suspect it's more widespread than mine, which is unfortunate, because I have no doubt it could solve a lot rancor and misery. Yes, after all these years, I'm still an idealist.