Caj

"You've yet to propose any objective demarcation to distinguish the "natural" from the "unnatural"."

I will demonstrate natural and unnatural through examples, sitting here in front of the computer typing is not natural, yet I am doing it to disscuss something with a person in the other side of the atlantic, which counts as socialisation, and thus can be considered natural.

Now, sitting in front of a computer typing names and numbers (which can be a person's job), is not natural since it does not lead to any direct results that are beneficial for the individual, what it does lead to is a salary.

So, you can see that the main reason why I consider something to be unnatural is because no one (if they could choose) would want to do it.

"Now you just contradicted yourself"

I did not, what I meant was, when it is necessary to take a decision that will affect many communities, all communities that will be affeted by the outcome of said decision will have a vote (the population of many communities votes).

"They aren't "supposed to"? What the fuck kind of argument is that?"

Are people supposed to get sent to their death in a war so that other few people can gain money.

"the Vatican denouncing abortion as "wrong" does as an argument against abortion. "

One could argue that abortion is unnatural.

"Basically, from what I've gathered, what's "natural" is whatever you advocate, while what's "unnatural" is everything else."

Natural is not whatever I advocate, I advocate a more natural system.

"The dominant morality of any society is the morality of its ruling class and serves to perpetuate the supremacy of this ruling class."

Indeed, society can give you a different version of morality thanthe one that I call moral code.

"We are completely egoistic"

Perfect answer.


"What's to stop one from arguing that only primitive technology, such as stone tools, are natural, and that all else must be rejected? "

Nothing, that is why primitivists exist.

"More likely, her decision was a result of a complex, interrelational combination of both social and biological factors."

Now you are getting close to the right answer.
If human behavior was indeed completely of biological origin, we would still live in anarchy, and the existance of capitalists is not justified.

"You suggested that she may have given the wallet back to "gain a friend." Is this not egoistic behavior?"

If you make an analysis of human behavior you will find that everything has origin in the ego (egoist), yet the actions that not only favor the self, but favor others are considered altruistic.

"most likely wouldn't consider slavery to be morally objectionable. I doubt you, on the other hand, would think the same."

The problem is you think I beleive that society has no influence in morality (which I do), but I do beleive that society has an influence in human behavior (which can or not follow the moral code).

"Humans have always been social."

Thus supporting my idea that moral code (being what makes us social) has not had enough time to change.

"and that society has no influence on human behavior whatsoever."

Already explained.

"These are incredibly ignorant and idiotic caricatures of determinism which are not even worthy of being addressed."

Isn't determinism the idea that everything that hapenned in history and will happen in the future already determined.
That is metaphisical.

"idealist"

Isn't socilism idealist as well.

"absolutist"

I gave evidence towards my moral absolutist beliefs.

"metaphysical"

No, completaly phisical, read the part where I say the pleasure center of the brain is activated by the woman giving the wallet back and relate it to moral code (which is not a metaphisical concept).

"religious"

Strangely I am listening to christian heavy metal whille I am writing this (I am not even christian).

"its vanguard party"

So you are giving supreme power to one party (like they do in fascism), the wolf metaphor stil applies.

"...a change from working class control to control by an exploitative bureaucracy."

There never was working class control in Russia, for that to happen the state would have to be abolished.

"without denying that society has any influence on human behavior, which would be ridiculous."

Society does have influence in human behavior, did you even read what I wrote: "capitalism nurtures egoism.", this means I do beleive that society has influnce in human behavior.

"Let's cease the discussion on this particular example of "what if?" history, as it is completely pointless and circular."

OK.

"Power doesn't corrupt. Power is utilized in the interests of those who hold power."

You often forget in this discussion that you are not speaking to a marxist, but to an anarchist.
To the anarchist the idea that power corrupts is not hypothesis, it is fact.

"Why has power not corrupted the managers of the modern state?"

You forget that power today is not given to a single man, but to a party. Today's system uses 2 parties which swich places every election, to give the population a feeling of democracy.
Every politician who is successfull (and has not necessarily became a president of prime minister, but still was an important member of one of the ruling parties) recieves large sums of money, these are his reward.
Not to mention that, even if a politician wanted to remain in power longer, it would take a coup d'etat to do it.