I see where you are coming from, but as I'll show, what I am saying is nothing like black vs white, civilized vs uncivilized. Consider what we are talking about, what we are trying to establish: some fundamental axiom that solves the problem of the "purpose" of the universe. You are essentially saying we have sense of scope for this purpose, what it should apply to and not apply to. However, we DO have a natural sense of scope: this axiom can only be utilized by entities able to process the meaning of it. Based on what we know so far, humans are probably the only species able to grasp the concept*. All humans notionally have the capacity for this. (Let's not get into specific cases of human deficiency at this point). So would it make sense to include other lower species or inanimate objects in the formulation? No, just as we don't apply criminal law to other species/objects.
Put succinctly, what we are doing is determining a course of action for those beings able to determine their own course of action from first principles.
*As I am no expert on other primates, dolphins, etc I admit it is possible for something to emerge there
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-03 03:24 am (UTC)Put succinctly, what we are doing is determining a course of action for those beings able to determine their own course of action from first principles.
*As I am no expert on other primates, dolphins, etc I admit it is possible for something to emerge there