You're viewing a single thread.
Not that I advocate violence, but not beating your kids, selling them on the street, or making them work in a factory is also a social contract.
Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one's offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It's non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.
We as creatures behave certain ways because of a result of biology and circumstances. How can you say anything we do isn't a natural/biological impulse. When did we stop being a part of nature? And stop being controlled by biology?
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Let's not bring Elon into this.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
This is a weird conversation.
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can't say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That's absurd. And isn't this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?
I'm saying it is not "non negotiable".