Because if you do think about it, you would realize that a wide variety of species shows a wide variety of different behaviours. Which in turn means that all these opposing ways of behaviour are indeed natural, but not necessary natural for humans, as they are contradictory to each other.
Or if you want to follow your proposed line of thought to the logical end, I await your proof of human males attaching to the much bigger female and atrophying to a simple ball of sacks for insemination as angler fishes are proven to do.
Or to make the point even more direct: the whole concept of laws to give or take ownership is in itself so counter to all other animals behaviour that it is ludicrous to try and argue any part of that is in any kind of way natural. Or by definition of ‘humans as animals’ would mean any political system we adopt is natural by design.
No, not really.
Because if you do think about it, you would realize that a wide variety of species shows a wide variety of different behaviours. Which in turn means that all these opposing ways of behaviour are indeed natural, but not necessary natural for humans, as they are contradictory to each other. Or if you want to follow your proposed line of thought to the logical end, I await your proof of human males attaching to the much bigger female and atrophying to a simple ball of sacks for insemination as angler fishes are proven to do.
Or to make the point even more direct: the whole concept of laws to give or take ownership is in itself so counter to all other animals behaviour that it is ludicrous to try and argue any part of that is in any kind of way natural. Or by definition of ‘humans as animals’ would mean any political system we adopt is natural by design.
Took you long enough