The reason why I feel that what you state is incomplete is because 1) in the so-called natural world creatures have no compunction about using other creatures totally and utterly against their will. There is no 'psychology' is nature but what you actually mean is I think something different. You mean conscience. So the person you refer to has to be aware of a psychological flaw but the necessary question is: And where does that come from?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:38 pm There is a psychological flaw in the thinking of any human being who can, even for a moment, entertain the idea of using another human being against that other human being's will for one's own gain or pleasure. It says, in essence, "I cannot succeed or survive if I have to depend entirely on my own will and effort and therefore, to have the kind of life I want, I have to be a parasite or predator--not a fully competent, viable human being."
There is absolutely no reason why many many humans may have no compunction whatever against using other humans "against that other human being's will for [their] own gain or pleasure". To say something different is to see this world through an idealistic lens.
Again, in nature, where is the "fully competent, viable [----] being". I don't think that being exists. All beings are either parasite or predator or a combination thereof. And Nature does not think about any of this.
See, I read what you write and I have to say "Your ideas did not come out of a vacuum". It seems to me that whether you are aware of it your thinking can only be defined as Occidental and Christian. This is why I refer to all of us as *outcomes* of what has informed us.
I am intrigued by your assertion that a fully competent, viable human being exists. How did you arrive at even the sense that such is possible? not to say necessary, good and attainable?