What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

I keep informing you that ethical objectivity seeks to remove evolutionary imperatives as justification not on the grounds that they can never be in alignment with each other, but because we understand that what is natural is not necessarily right.  So, yes, you can have such an interest or pressure that aligns with what is good, but it isn't the imperative or your interest in it that -makes- it good.


Consider these two statements.

Things which reduce our chances for survival are commonly bad. 

Things are bad because they reduce our chances for survival.

Not the same, yeah?  The later, falls to the naturalistic fallacy.  The former, well..you tell me, does it seem like an objective appraisal that's true regardless of whether someone else sees it or cares?

No, it does not seem like an objective appraisal because it is only bad in that we want to survive for biologically rooted reasons. If we don't care about survival, then reducing our chances of survival is no longer bad. You seem to still be under the illusion that things can be bad for reasons that aren't a result of our biological imperatives, an example of which you've yet to present.

I'm probably going to demur on this discussion because you seem to be spinning your wheels over the same bad arguments, and I have other pressing matters, not the least of which is scolding Drich for his dishonesty and such sometime later today. I will try to pick this up again after I have expedited more pressing concerns.