I had said,
12. Given our lack of omniscience, we typically have to base choices and actions on our greatest probability for obtaining benefit. Harmonious rights reciprocity is one.
13. It follows then that in a social context, we ought to act in harmonious ways and we ought not act in predatory ways.
To which you responded,
Now there’s the pot calling the white porcelain plate black . And you say,One of the reasons I keep losing interest in discussion here is because you just don't listen. You don't respond to the things l say.
I’m not a utilitarian, I sincerely think that my logical assumptions have been supported and justified, I think that you are wrong for claiming that I haven’t, and even more wrong for saying that I can’t. Now, let’s see who’s not listening and who’s not responding in a substantive way to the argument. Please help me understand what part of this seems arbitrary and unsupported:Like here. You are still assuming that utilitarian assumptions are the only logical assumptions are so natural they are just givens and we don't have to justify them. They are not givens, you do have to justify them and you can't.
Because they assume that the individual is just a cog in the machine and they reduce the individual to an aggregate. I don't accept that I insist that you try to justify it. But you refuse to do so because you keep assuming it's a given.
a) Do you agree that we lack of omniscience, or do I need to support my assumption?
b) If you agree that we lack omniscience, then doesn’t it follow that we typically have to base choices and actions on our greatest probability for obtaining benefit, or do I need to support my assumption?
c) If you agree with a) and b), then are you saying that you do not think that harmonious rights reciprocity is generally more likely to result in benefit to the actor than choosing to prey on others, or do I need to support my assumption?
d) If you agree with a), b), and c), then are you saying that you do not think that it follows that in a social context, we ought to act in harmonious ways and we ought not act in predatory ways, or do I need to support my assumption?
Rob