I was not clear at all when writing about Hobbes. I was replying to a very wide scope of ideas and at leased three people. Hobbes does not beleive that we have reason or logic since these can not be touched or measured or otherwise known by science. That is why I say in his view, mankind is nothing but resus monkies on crack. With out the capsity to reason and decide we would persue our emotional urges all the time. In fact we would go about hurting others all the time in order to fulfill our own selfish desires. But it is our capasity to reason which alows us to deny our urges for the good of others. This is the basis of law and order: All man's rights must be limited so much so that no one else's rights are limited as well. This is also the basis of love, denying one's self for the good of another or others. The good of the many out ways the good of the one or the few.Survival is emotional. Our emotions are designed to keep us alive. Pleasure is a positive reinforcement to survival. Usualy doing things which increase our survival (eating, sex, etc...) are accompanied by rewards of pleasure. Love and Law are oposed to survival of the individual because the body would actualy feel an amount of pain at having its rights limited. Love are counter productive to survival. Though survival its self is not wrong, and therefore emotion is not wrong, it is only when they become central. When you look at at a tree and think oly of lumber and profit or when you look at a woman and see only dirty thoughts. Then you are puting your own survival in priority over others which is oposed to Love and Law. Your goal is no longer the good of others but your own infinite survival, immortality.
Love and Law are both grounded in Reason and Decision. Many of my friends would tell me that love is an emotion. But acording to this model, lust would be an emotion used to move you toward infinite survival through your offspring. Love is a decision.
Yes there would be chaos if we were ruled by emotion. Hobbes, beleiving we have no logic or reason, said that we are all selfish, so in order to protect our selves from our selves we would need a monarch to rule. And the only way to get someone to do what you want them to is to break theri will. So in the world devoid of reason and logic and rational decision, we would either be rulers or willess subjects.
On the other hand if we are capable of free will, like you say, and Locke and Jefferson and I say, then you have the right to rule your self because you are able to reason to determine when the things you want to do are wrong, and wrong is when you harm others, other things or people.
So is it reasonable to use animals in tests, is it reasonable to slash and burn the rainforests in South America? Lets talk about that.
-Ryan-
None.
