rosencrantz Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Following John Locke and other thinkers you can get to the Non Aggression Principles using axioms (first principles) and logically deduction. This views the human mind as a blank slate in the sense that everybody can understand the NAP and adhere to it. On the other hand, the r/K selection theory seems to indicate that there is a fundamental difference on how human minds work and on how likely it is that they will grasp the NAP and live in accordance to it. If that is true, doesn't that invalidate the universality of the NAP?
dsayers Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 If that is true, doesn't that invalidate the universality of the NAP? No. Sustenance and reproduction are biological imperatives. The universality of self-ownership tells you that a person's body is their property. So whether you have very few partners or many, as long as they're consensual, there is no violation of property rights. Once there is a violation of property rights, the motive isn't particularly relevant. Because self-ownership is derived from reason, meaning the person is aware of the consequences of their actions. 1
MrCapitalism Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Violating NAP doesn't invalidate the NAP. If you get a wrong answer on a math question, that doesn't mean the principle of math is invalid. As dsayers said, If r/K doesn't violate NAP, then it doesn't violate the NAP.
Wuzzums Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Let's take a hypothetical. If humans are indeed either r or K, and only one subset of these is more likely to grasp the NAP, which one is it and why? The way I see it both initiate force in different ways. K's are a predatory subspecies thus they initiate force themselves whilst r's initiate force by proxy through K's. However K's are more likely to follow a principle regardless of personal benefits whereas r's only follow a principle if it's in their direct interest. Thus K's who follow the NAP are more likely to stick to it than r's. I theorize there's as much violence in a full K society as there is in a full r society. K's wouldn't initiate force against each other because they know the repercussions will be dire, thus it's best to be nice. R's wouldn't initiate force against each other because they're too busy playing victim. I like the NAP because it offers a solution to both subspecies. R's are free to be as non-competitive as they want and K's are free to express their violent urges through self-defense. Everybody wins, except those that do not adhere to the NAP.
Spenc Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 r/k doesn't really define stupidity/intelligence. And also it is a wide spectrum, like '0' is neutral, '-1' is full R, '+1' is full K hypothetically (or you can do a 0-100 scale or whatever....) Picture a bell curve where there is a lot of people hovering more to the center than to the opposite and extreme poles. Pay attention to Stef's podcasts where he talks about the typical southern conservatives who go to church and see virtue in sending their sons into the military and so on. These aren't budding Einsteins! They are fucking retarded from a philosophical point of view. It is just their schedules of economic values which differentiate them from philosophically retarded Rs. Neither Rs nor Ks have any real incentive to follow the NAP at present. The problem isn't that there are too many Rs to enforce or instill as a value the NAP, the problem is that there are too many people of any spot on the r/k spectrum who have access to philosophy. I would highly recommend you all read some Michael Shermer such as, "The Mind of the Market" and "The Believing Brain" because he is a great researcher and collator of science and well-connected in the scientific community with access to great minds. He helps present cutting edge research in understandable language to the average person with intelligence and curiosity. Getting some broader knowledge of the workings of the brain outside of how it is presented in the various podcasts by Stef will greatly enhance your appreciation and understanding of how an r/k differentiation might actually exist. I'm currently trying to get going on his latest, "The Moral Arc" and want to go back to "The Science of Good and Evil" since listening to hundreds and hundreds of FDR podcasts. I would love to see Stef interview Shermer or rather have a lengthy in-depth discussion about his r/k theory.
Recommended Posts