This is what you're stating. What I'm asking for is a justification of it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:55 am Say, if a person is born without limbs or full blind,
in this case, there is an oughtness that all humans should be born with 4 limbs and with full eyesight in alignment with the universal qualities of human nature.
There is an "oughtness" that comes from what?
Are you attempting to say that it's something other than statistical norms at this point? (And again, re some of the stuff I cut out earlier, a property that 99.9...% of xs have isn't a universal property of xs . . . not that universality matters for anything here anyway. The point about statistical norms is that statistical norms do not imply universality, and they certainly do not imply that anything should be universal).But because the universal of human nature is an inherent standards,
I would WANT it to be taken care of as well as it can be, as would many other people. That we WANT this, that it's a desire or preference we have, doesn't imply that outside of that context, including for other people's desires or preferences, it ought or should be a particular way.if your child has an abnormal heart, wouldn't you expect his heart ought to be corrected to what is verified and justified as a normal human heart?
Oy vey. So it's just a paean to conformism for you. That something is a statistical norm DOES NOT IMPLY that anything SHOULD be like the statistical norm.This is why it is critical to establish what is universal and normal for a human being and if there are deviations they need to be corrected to normal standards.
It's clear you're not really analyzing the source of your "rah rah conformism" view. It's just a disposition that you have.