debate

Human rights ain’t working at this point and neither is the other side of the spectrum. Fucking human rights. More like people chanting “Muh rights” amairite Raf you know I say in jest right?

First off Lamby, despite the obvious bias in your source, your own source agrees with me when it says that animals are incapable of engaging in social contract outside their own species (although I'm not even sure if they can within their own species, but that can be a separate debate) since they cannot consent to nor comprehend the social contract. They cannot express rationality and so they cannot consent to one. "like when a puppy wolf plays too hard and wont be nice, they abandon it just like when a human breaks the law, hes locked up" Here is a confusion between a comparison between a persons relationship with the government and a puppy wolf's relationship with its owner. As rational people, we agree that we would likely be better off living in an organized society in which there are rules which are not allowed to be broken, and if someone would break the rules, then the government would interfere and punish those who break the rules. However, a puppy wolf cannot consent to any set of rules that you set on it. It is literally incapable of acting rationally. There is no social contract in this situation. "like the relationship you and your dog have, you take care of him and he shows you affection" So if I were to give a homeless person $1,000,000 and he shows affection for it, is this a social contract as well? I'll give you a hint: the answer is no. Rafael, I'm like 90% sure there is no such thing as a "social pact" in political philosophy. Maybe in some literature that I haven't read someone refers to social contract as social pact, but I have never heard of it before. The theory of social contract has very little to do with empathy. The basic idea is that naturally, you would be completely free to do whatever you want. However, so would everyone else. Someone would be completely free to steal from you, kill you, or something similar without any intervention. Therefore, as rational agents, people came together and decided to give up some of their freedom to protect the rights they wanted most. For example, I would give up my freedom to steal from/kill you if you agreed not to steal from/kill me. Overall, social contract is set to be in your best interest as an individual, but overall serves everyone as a consequence. It has nothing to do with empathy or "sensibility with the nature + people". My overall goal is to maximize the happiness of me and the people close to me, and I dont think anyone can positively influence my life in any way if they are incapable of engaging in, or become engaged in at some point in the future, social contract. Therefore, I would not personally extend moral consideration to anyone/anything who wont be able to engage in social contract (notice how infants can eventually become rational enough to comprehend, consent to and enter a social contract, so I think it's morally wrong to kill them). Since animals are incapable of doing so, I feel like I am rationally justified in eating meat. Also, currently I'm in favor of outlawing abortion. If anyone wants to debate that I wouldnt mind debating it.

"My overall goal is to maximize the happiness of me and the people close to me" so you would be pro slavery because it would benefit you?

Is that a red herring from lamby or no I forget the term I was looking for

im not gonna go through everything he said atm, though i did read it (im tired and id prefer to do that when im more awake), but id like him to answer the question

It’s just funny when you quote and then do questions like that oh well. Have good sleep

I've literally answered that question like 5 times in the earlier debate. No because if I accept the idea that we can arbitrarily force people into labor and restrict their freedoms, then I would have no defense if someone were to force me to be a slave as well.

sorry, i remember touching this issue but not where we got with it lets say theres no way you yourself would be at risk of becoming a slave (like how whites didnt have to worry about being slaves, just blacks) would you be opposed to it?