If your mother and father were horrible to a baby, and years later you met that baby as a ten-year-old would you treat him in a special way? As a 15-year-old? If your neighbour whom you knew did it? The guy down the road. What if your parents sold that baby for bread, and so they did not go hungry, didn't die. Or you didn't go hungry. Where are the cut-off points you are talking about?
I don't think 'natural' is good. There are many things that we apply (some almost arbitrary) (some ignorant and backward ideas of natural and not-natural agenda-propagating) rules of morality. I think 'natural' is a political rhetoric, profoundly abused. 'Diversity' is the only defensible rhetoric for 'thinking' beings. We are not, of course, the only creatures that do thinking, but we are the only creatures with the power to oppress others and other creatures whose languages we don't understand. Us (badly) thinking creatures, slowly, ponderously gathering the evidence of our badness (I see no reason for your (god's) patience with us), have the ability to decide to be better than (the fashionable) 'natural' of the day. It is our responsibility to transcend our vileness. Just that. That one task. Our thinkingness I believe is for that. A world (constructed by god) to demonstrate this point. And we will find every rhetor...
Comments