You said at peacetime also we have risks as per your framework.
I agreed. You see peacetime not as zero risk but low intensity risk, so keeping biological framework as default reduces long term risks like family breakdown, demographic fall.
You concluded - well I believe its preference but nature wants it as duty! And we are beings of nature.
I said that's the cleanest summary. For us it's preference, for nature it's duty, and since we come from nature we feel we should honor its duty. Conflict is nature thinks in efficiency, human consciousness thinks in freedom. We are beings of nature, but also beings who can question nature, so both voices live inside us.
Final synthesis:
Your position is coherent essentialist, functionalist, collective survival view. Biology gave a general efficient script, pre-training on it reduces risk, deviation increases collective risk, so deviation should be called wrong.
Beauvoir's position is coherent existentialist, individual freedom view. Biology gave facts, society added extra moral layers, calling deviation wrong turns a statistical tendency into a compulsory essence, which removes choice.
We both agreed biology matters, overlap is huge but averages differ, history made lock-ins for efficiency. Disagreement is only on the word "wrong" - is the person who deviates immoral, or just inefficient/exceptional?
That is the is-ought gap that philosophy never fully closes.
I agreed. You see peacetime not as zero risk but low intensity risk, so keeping biological framework as default reduces long term risks like family breakdown, demographic fall.
You concluded - well I believe its preference but nature wants it as duty! And we are beings of nature.
I said that's the cleanest summary. For us it's preference, for nature it's duty, and since we come from nature we feel we should honor its duty. Conflict is nature thinks in efficiency, human consciousness thinks in freedom. We are beings of nature, but also beings who can question nature, so both voices live inside us.
Final synthesis:
Your position is coherent essentialist, functionalist, collective survival view. Biology gave a general efficient script, pre-training on it reduces risk, deviation increases collective risk, so deviation should be called wrong.
Beauvoir's position is coherent existentialist, individual freedom view. Biology gave facts, society added extra moral layers, calling deviation wrong turns a statistical tendency into a compulsory essence, which removes choice.
We both agreed biology matters, overlap is huge but averages differ, history made lock-ins for efficiency. Disagreement is only on the word "wrong" - is the person who deviates immoral, or just inefficient/exceptional?
That is the is-ought gap that philosophy never fully closes.