But while I agree with Cato that what makes the jello wrestling so disgusting was that it singled out a specific group for our cruel pleasure, I should point out that there are other ways to dehumanize people (even contractually) that do not place group identity above humanity. For instance, we could pay people to have sex in a cage in North Quad. Ron’s logic would certainly say this is fine. But I think a higher sense of who we are would look down on such uninhibited libertarianism.

But while I agree with Cato that what makes the jello wrestling so disgusting was that it singled out a specific group for our cruel pleasure, I should point out that there are other ways to dehumanize people (even contractually) that do not place group identity above humanity. For instance, we could pay people to have sex in a cage in North Quad. Ron’s logic would certainly say this is fine. But I think a higher sense of who we are would look down on such uninhibited libertarianism.

If it’s true, as Ron suggests, that humans possess absolutely no control over themselves–that is, they are incapable of reasonable reflection on their actions and incapable of ranking what is better or worse–then there is absolutely no reason to try to persuade us to respect the freedom or rights of anybody to engage in any type of behavior. We will be compelled to violate others’ freedom whenever we are carried away by whatever passions happen to be driving us. After all, “we cannot control how we feel.”

If human being really is the mere expression of random and unintelligible passions, then there can be no reason to assert that repression is somehow inferior to expression of feelings. Who’s to say? Why? Nor is it possible to assert that entertainment is somehow a good that “we should embrace.” Why not endorse repression? Why not abuse the midgets while we’re at it, if that pleases us after all? What if we “feel” or are entertained by repressing and tyrannizing others’ feelings?

Thus Ron can’t really assert that anything is in our “best interest,” because he doesn’t believe we can know what is in our “best interest” at all. For Ron, it’s all about random desires. His attempt to equalize all pleasures really reveals that pleasure has no more value than any other type of feeling we might experience.

But if one allows a standard of human nature (and doesn’t simply dismiss it out of a blind dogmatism), then one can actually make an argument about what actions are more human, or more fully human. These actions, I would speculate, point toward a rationality that makes us above the animal.

In that light, I think we would find that the more whorish we are, the more animalistic we are. We would probably find that human excellence is not derived from treating others like play things (even if we pay them), and we would probably find more satisfying, rational pleasures than being slaves to entertainment or “the brain below the waist.”

Ron’s idea of freedom makes us total slaves. We think we’re free, but really we’re just petty, calculating animals–”last men” to use Nietzsche’s expression–who submit to egalitarian hedonism for no real reason than that we don’t have the courage to live a different life.

A real freedom would allow us to pursue a life that is more fully exhibits our natural human capacities. Excellence, or the good life, would be our aim. Sure, out of practicality it might make sense to allow some rather crass contracts. But it’s not fitting for a college directed toward enriching the life of the mind to indulge the animal spirits of lesser souls. We dehumanize the midgets by treating them as subrational beings, or props for our pleasing, and we dehumanize ourselves by suggesting that our basest desires are all we can be.

If it’s true, as Ron suggests, that humans possess absolutely no control over themselves–that is, they are incapable of reasonable reflection on their actions and incapable of ranking what is better or worse–then there is absolutely no reason to try to persuade us to respect the freedom or rights of anybody to engage in any type of behavior. We will be compelled to violate others’ freedom whenever we are carried away by whatever passions happen to be driving us. After all, “we cannot control how we feel.”

If human being really is the mere expression of random and unintelligible passions, then there can be no reason to assert that repression is somehow inferior to expression of feelings. Who’s to say? Why? Nor is it possible to assert that entertainment is somehow a good that “we should embrace.” Why not endorse repression? Why not abuse the midgets while we’re at it, if that pleases us after all? What if we “feel” or are entertained by repressing and tyrannizing others’ feelings?

Thus Ron can’t really assert that anything is in our “best interest,” because he doesn’t believe we can know what is in our “best interest” at all. For Ron, it’s all about random desires. His attempt to equalize all pleasures really reveals that pleasure has no more value than any other type of feeling we might experience.

But if one allows a standard of human nature (and doesn’t simply dismiss it out of a blind dogmatism), then one can actually make an argument about what actions are more human, or more fully human. These actions, I would speculate, point toward a rationality that makes us above the animal.

In that light, I think we would find that the more whorish we are, the more animalistic we are. We would probably find that human excellence is not derived from treating others like play things (even if we pay them), and we would probably find more satisfying, rational pleasures than being slaves to entertainment or “the brain below the waist.”

Ron’s idea of freedom makes us total slaves. We think we’re free, but really we’re just petty, calculating animals–”last men” to use Nietzsche’s expression–who submit to egalitarian hedonism for no real reason than that we don’t have the courage to live a different life.

A real freedom would allow us to pursue a life that is more fully exhibits our natural human capacities. Excellence, or the good life, would be our aim. Sure, out of practicality it might make sense to allow some rather crass contracts. But it’s not fitting for a college directed toward enriching the life of the mind to indulge the animal spirits of lesser souls. We dehumanize the midgets by treating them as subrational beings, or props for our pleasing, and we dehumanize ourselves by suggesting that our basest desires are all we can be.