The Arguments Against The Biological And Evolutionary Rules Of Life
We could start by pointing out that rationality and logic are centrifugal to our structure of morality. That despite overwhelming amounts of evidence for our selfishness, our inclusion of considerations for all earthlings exists not as a protection against the insecurity of our arguments being considered intrinsically inconsistent but because of the obvious fallacies involved with anthropocentricism. There is no evidence that indicates that we are the most significant species on the planet, in fact much evidence indicates against this assertion. Therefore, we must operate by being considerate towards the biological and evolutionary demands of all life. The reason our proposed code is only limited to earthlings is because we cannot include all
…show more content…
It is possible that the type of coexistence and progress we are alluding towards is a fantasy. It is quite possible that all intelligent life is bound to self-destruct at a certain point. However, despite this possibility, the needs and demands of life would not change and it logically follows that their goals would not either. Therefore, even in such a situation, an objective method of reaching the closest to our goals would exist.
It seems too supercilious an idea at first, but we must understand that the search for such a code is never ending. We must also allow that there will be blunders, but does that completely negate the utility of such a project? No, it doesn't, for the existence of such knowledge and wisdom is a necessity. That every person of a reasonable mind set should set about on such a journey is what the universe demands from us puny creatures . If we cannot learn to live by and understand the laws of which we are fleeting products, we cannot hope to do …show more content…
If relativism is embraced, if no collective responsibility is actualized, the type of unity and commitment needed for the next stage of our civilizational evolution will not be achieved. It would be a sad, sad story indeed.
Morality is a social construct. All the devises that we use in our discourses on morality are social constructs, there is no denying such claims. However, how much of that social construction conforms to or is aligned with the truly objective laws that could bring about the conditions that are rough estimates of the potential of our form of biology is the true test of our
It is possible that the type of coexistence and progress we are alluding towards is a fantasy. It is quite possible that all intelligent life is bound to self-destruct at a certain point. However, despite this possibility, the needs and demands of life would not change and it logically follows that their goals would not either. Therefore, even in such a situation, an objective method of reaching the closest to our goals would exist.
It seems too supercilious an idea at first, but we must understand that the search for such a code is never ending. We must also allow that there will be blunders, but does that completely negate the utility of such a project? No, it doesn't, for the existence of such knowledge and wisdom is a necessity. That every person of a reasonable mind set should set about on such a journey is what the universe demands from us puny creatures . If we cannot learn to live by and understand the laws of which we are fleeting products, we cannot hope to do …show more content…
If relativism is embraced, if no collective responsibility is actualized, the type of unity and commitment needed for the next stage of our civilizational evolution will not be achieved. It would be a sad, sad story indeed.
Morality is a social construct. All the devises that we use in our discourses on morality are social constructs, there is no denying such claims. However, how much of that social construction conforms to or is aligned with the truly objective laws that could bring about the conditions that are rough estimates of the potential of our form of biology is the true test of our