Excerpt: “How long can we separate the wall of biology from
the walls of law and political science?”
Interesting to note how laws might change if we try to insert biology into it. That means a fundamental shift and bucketing of people will occur. Ethics under this realm could lead to greater divides, either with the races or with individual, and the justification at this point would be scientific.
Paradoxically, the people appointed to cook up these laws may still be operating within their own opinionated realm and thus the universality of the laws could be skewed in the favour of the person's own belief. This would justify Hitler's beliefs etc, because that too was skewed only towards biology and the worship of fitter, better looking, and more athletic humans. The problem with most laws is that, there is no agreed upon way forward for the human race. So since we don't have a cumulative north star, we are unable to decide what steps need to be taken. Nor is the collective given more importance than the individual.
Say we could actually find a way to unite under a common goal, would the goal:
1. Stay constant ad infinitum?
2. Would everyone agree that it is the way forward and give up personal gain in the favour of collective gain?
It's similar to the concept of communism in my mind. It works really well, only if everyone agrees to it. If even one person disagrees, the whole system collapses.
Plus in times of disagreement, most laws go out the window and talks break down. So anarchy can once again be the order of the day.
Interesting points to ponder on.
