(February 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)yoda55 Wrote: The violence, or lack of it, doesn't stem from an instinct for specie preservation. If specie preservation was an instinct, then all would err in favor of life. Since it isn't an instinct, it must be a conscious decision of one individual to inflict harm on another.
Incorrect reasoning. If you assume that they are "erring", then there is no way to establish that it is not in favor of life. In fact, outside the human society, most of violence is in fact perpetrated by instinct and in favor of life.
(February 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)yoda55 Wrote: If it's a conscious decision, then there is a value judgment being committed - one where the violence perpetrator holds his own preservation worth more than that of the victim. It is as easily reversed - indicating that the motivation is subjective. And, the motive is selfishness. If selfishness were removed, and replaced with altruism, then more people would survive to die of natural causes (e.g. old age).
Wrong once more. If it is a subjective value judgment that is being made then you cannot say that the perpetrator holds his own preservation to be worth more than the victims. That may or may not be the case. Further, if selfishness is removed and replaced with altruism, then a lot more people would die not only of violence, but also hunger, poverty and disease. Some of the worst instances of violence are committed by those who believe themselves to be acting altruistically or for the greater good.
(February 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)yoda55 Wrote: Looking at history, and around at the progress of which mankind is capable, we note that building and progress are best served by cooperation (where the end product, and/or knowledge, is at the very least the sum of the individual contributions).
Thus making cooperation a very selfish endeavor.
(February 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)yoda55 Wrote: If building and progress are superior to further the greater benefit, then can we say the "greater benefit" is a "moral" foundation?
Nope. That's just your subjective value judgment.
(February 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)yoda55 Wrote: Noting that the universality (collective acknowledgement and adherence) to this "moral" point is agreed to by all, then can we say it is an "absolute morality"?
Nope. Since there is no collective acknowledgement and adherence to the principle and universality does not equal absoluteness.
