Thinking - Robert Hamill

Natural - Theoretical

Many discussions can separate people into two groups.
1) Those that claim that something is natural, arising with humankind's development.
2) Those that argue that something is theoretically possible; therefore it has the right to be considered.

   Let's take a straightforward example - vegetarianism. More provocative examples are sexual orientation and discrimination of many stripes.
   The Natural Group - these people take their premises from nature. We've always been this way. We evolved this way. Nature intended (the teleological nuance is probably appropriate here) for people to eat animals. Therefore it's okay.
   The Theoretical Group - these people say that we don't need to eat animals. It's theoretically possible to live without eating animals. Therefore, the eating of animals is a gratuitous act that could be avoided.
   Both groups are being logical - what is different is the premises they start from.

   Good decision-making rests on 2 fundamental pillars - the premises one starts with and the logical reasoning done with those premises. If two people have different premises but are both logical, they can come to different conclusions.
   It is not well understood how we come to rely on certain premises (and not other premises). I'd be glad to hear some fruitful discussion on this point.
   With culture, society, and technology all evolving and growing in power, many things that weren't possible during our evolution are theoretically possible now. There are more and more choices available to the people in what I call the Theoretical Group.
   Realistically all I want to do here is bring into the spotlight this contributor to many unresolved disputes - the choice of premises, the natural or the theoretical. Perhaps then more attention can be paid to the root cause of the disagreements.