Gertie wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 4:58 pm
Felix
No equivocation there, do I need to spell out in detail the obvious logic of those statements?
It might seem obvious that satisfying survival needs is a moral good - but why, what is that claim grounded in?
Is surviving inherently/objectively morally good, in all cases, if so why? Is killing always objectively wrong? Does it include all living things (bacteria, carrots, ants, cows, dogs, chimps) ?
In order to have a basis to answer such questions you need a justifiable underlying axiomatic foundation. The objective basis on which to claim meeting (some/all?) survival needs (of all/some living things?) is objectively morally good. And without that, the charge of equivocation is fair.
In other words, you need to think it through to the next step - what's the basis for your claim. And if you do, you might find it more difficult to claim morality is/can be 'objective'. Imo.
I had proposed,
M1. 'Survival of the individual and preservation of the species'
MUST be the Absolute Moral Law but only as a guide for all individual[s] to comply with.
Note this is applicable to human beings only i.e. being morally conscious.
This is based on empirical evidences.
Show [empirically] me one species ever in the history of evolution which emerged with the sole purpose to be extinct immediate.
From M1 we have sub, i.e.
M1.1 - To ensure the preservation of the Species, no human can kill another human being.
The justification is this, if there is a generic moral law that a human being can kill another, then in theory the human species will potentially go extinct.
Critical Note:
The above M1 and M1.1 are
only guides to strive for thus not enforceable.
In practice, what is to be implemented are Ethical Maxims, i.e.
E1. With M1 as overriding, killing of another human being is only acceptable with a justified reason or situation.
In this case the onus is on the killer to provide the justification why he has killed another human being, e.g. crime of passion, under serious threats, and other justified reasons.
With the current state of human beings there will be killings of humans which then create a Gap between the Moral and Ethical realities.
In this case, humanity must practice continuous improvements to find the root causes why there is a variance between the absolute moral standard and the ethical standard and find solution to reduce the variance.
Being human, it is obvious the absolute moral law and its standard will never be achieved, but this approach provide a basis for humanity to close the gap between the ideal and the practical progressively.
Re other species;
From M1 we establish, i.e.
M1.2 No human being shall die prematurely [i.e. not due to mortality].
The human species survive interdependently with other species.
If other species are made extinct and it effect M1.2, then corrective actions need to be taken. Thus the human species must protect other species that also contribute humanity to survive.
Species that are a threat to the human species, i.e. virulent bacteria and other threatening living things need to be managed or eliminated, e.g. ebola, aids, smallpox, etc.
Grounded on the primary absolute moral Law, there will be other absolute objective sub-moral laws [and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub ones] and various Ethical Maxims to ensure the survival of the human species [at least till the inevitable]
optimally.
To achieve the above we will need to expedite the progress on the inherent moral drives within the brain of the average person. This will entail the acceleration of the progress in all the relevant faculties within the human mind, i.e. intelligent quotient, EQ, spiritual quotient, philosophical quotient, etc.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.