Is it "morally wrong" when another animal eats those eggs, or is this not a particularly useful example?
This thread is pretty weird. Rayiner isn't saying anything shocking; he's recapitulating political philosophy that most of us learn in high school. It's one thing to debate Rousseau vs. Hobbes, another to act like the concepts of the general will and the state of nature are novel.
Saying we designed society this way with such and such constraints and trade offs is like saying meerkats do the same thing in their societies, which is ridiculous. Nature isn't as cutthroat as the quote suggested. Clearly outside of humanity, love and stable societies exist also. I don't think this argues against rayiners point but adds to it.
This thread is pretty weird. Rayiner isn't saying anything shocking; he's recapitulating political philosophy that most of us learn in high school. It's one thing to debate Rousseau vs. Hobbes, another to act like the concepts of the general will and the state of nature are novel.