|
|
|
|
|
|
by vacuity
571 days ago
|
|
|
> But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs. > When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. Sure. I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now. I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal? |
|
|
Whatever you bind yourself by, you're doing so as a human. That's my point. At the most meta level, our ethics and value systems are chosen by humans, whether they place humans at the centre of them or not.
> I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now
Sure. Fine. This is common argument, if one I don't see finding purchase in our lifetimes.
> I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?
Humans means humans. Different sapient beings are irrelevant when we’re discussing a lifeless body.